United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
DISMISS, STAYING CASE, AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING
CASE
ROBERT
H. CLELAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
In
2018, Petitioner Richard Michael Sieradzki filed a pro
se petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent Joe Barrett then filed a
motion to dismiss the petition based on Petitioner's
failure to exhaust state remedies for all his claims. As
explained below, the petition is a “mixed”
petition of exhausted and unexhausted claims. Dismissal of
the petition would likely result in a future petition being
barred by the habeas statute of limitations. Accordingly,
rather than dismissing the petition, the court will stay and
administratively close the case to allow Petitioner the
opportunity to return to state court and exhaust all of his
claims.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
April 10, 2015, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Muskegon County
Circuit Court to one count of aggravated indecent exposure as
a sexually delinquent person, Mich. Comp. Laws
§750.335a(2)(b) and (c), and one count of accosting a
child for immoral purposes, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.145a.
Petitioner had no plea agreement, but the trial court agreed
that the minimum sentence for the accosting conviction would
not exceed 58 months in prison and that the sentences for
both counts would run concurrently. (ECF No. 7-3,
PageID.61-63.) On July 6, 2015, the trial court sentenced
Petitioner as a habitual offender to one day to life
imprisonment for the indecent exposure conviction and 58
months to 15 years for the accosting conviction, with credit
for 293 days. The court ordered the two sentences to run
concurrently. (ECF No. 7-5, PageID.116.)
In an
application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of
Appeals, Petitioner argued that the trial court violated
statutory requirements and his right to due process by
convicting and sentencing him as a sexually delinquent person
without holding a separate hearing on sexual delinquency. He
also alleged that his trial attorney was ineffective for not
objecting to the trial court's failure to hold a separate
hearing to establish sexual delinquency. The Court of Appeals
granted leave to appeal, but later rejected Petitioner's
arguments and affirmed his convictions and sentences in a
per curiam opinion. See People v.
Sieradzki, No. 333245, 2017 WL 4557026 (Mich. Ct. App.
Oct. 12, 2017) (unpublished).
Petitioner
raised the same two issues he argued in his appeal in an
application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme
Court. He also raised four new claims: the trial court
refused to recuse itself despite overwhelming evidence of
judicial bias; the trial court deprived him of due process by
not allowing him to take a polygraph test to prove his
innocence; his prior convictions for criminal sexual conduct
were improperly used for purposes of the habitual offender
statute; and appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to
(a) file a motion for reconsideration in the Michigan Court
of Appeals regarding the right to a separate hearing on
sexual delinquency, (b) raise a claim about trial
counsel's ineffectiveness, and (c) raise the new issues
presented in his application for leave to appeal. On July 3,
2018, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal
because it was not persuaded to review the questions
presented raised in Petitioner's application. See
People v. Sieradzki, 913 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. 2018).
On
October 17, 2018, Petitioner signed and dated his habeas
corpus petition, which the Clerk of Court filed on October
24, 2018. Petitioner alleges as grounds for relief that:
1) the Michigan Court of Appeals erred by ruling that
Petitioner waived his claim regarding the trial court's
failure to hold a separate hearing to establish the sexual
delinquency charge;
2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
lack of a separate hearing regarding the sexual delinquency
charge;
3) the trial court violated his right to due process by
refusing to recuse itself despite overwhelming evidence that
the court was biased;
4) the trial court violated his right to due process by
refusing to allow him to take a polygraph test to prove his
innocence;
5) his right to due process was violated by the use of prior
convictions for criminal sexual conduct to establish that he
was a habitual offender; and
6) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to (a) file
a motion for reconsideration in the Michigan Court of Appeals
on his first claim, (b) argue that defense counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to the lack of a separate
hearing on ...