RODGERS v. WARDEN

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. For the reasons explained above, the respondent's motion to dismiss, dkt. 7 , is GRANTED. Mr. Rodgers' motion to stay the proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance, dkt. 9 , is DENIED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability shall not issue. (See Order). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/18/2021. (MAC)

Case 1:20-cv-02859-JMS-TAB Document 10 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 151

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER RODGERS,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:20-cv-02859-JMS-TAB

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Christopher Rodgers has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his
conviction for murder under Indiana Case No. 49G05-1306-MR-42089. The respondent has filed
a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Rodgers has not exhausted his state court remedies.
Mr. Rodgers has filed a motion to stay the proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance while he
returns to state court to exhaust his claims. For the reasons explained below, the motion to dismiss
is GRANTED, the motion to stay the proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance is DENIED,
and the petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability shall
not issue.
I.
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2014, Mr. Rodgers pleaded guilty to one count of murder IN Indiana Case
No. 49G05-1306-MR-42089. Dkt. 7-1, p. 3. On May 23, 2014, the trial court sentenced him to
serve 45 years in the Indiana Department of Correction. Id. at 4. Mr. Rodgers did not pursue a
direct appeal of his conviction or sentence in state court. Dkt. 2, p. 2.

Case 1:20-cv-02859-JMS-TAB Document 10 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 152

On January 21, 2015, Mr. Rodgers filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Indiana
Case No. 49G05-1501-PC-3238. Dkt. 7-2, p. 1. On March 2, 2016, the post-conviction court
granted his motion to withdraw the petition. Id. at 5.
On March 23, 2016, Mr. Rodgers filed a second petition for post-conviction relief under
Indiana Case No. 49G05-1604-PC-14456. Dkt. 7-3, p. 1. The post-conviction court held an
evidentiary hearing on the petition on January 16, 2019. Id. at 7-8. Mr. Rodgers filed his proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 30, 2019. Id. at 8. The state subsequently filed four
motions for extensions of time to file its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, all of
which were granted Id. at 8-10. The state's last motion for an extension of time was granted on
September 29, 2020, and the state's deadline was extended to January 15, 2021. Id. at 10.
On January 15, 2021, the state filed its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
See Indiana Case No. 49G05-1604-PC-14456. On January 21, 2021, the post-conviction court
denied Mr. Rodger's petition for post-conviction relief. Id.
While the post-conviction petition was still pending, in October 2020, Mr. Rodgers filed
the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. 2. He argued that the Court should excuse his
failure to exhaust state court remedies because the post-conviction proceedings had encountered
an inordinate and unjustifiable delay as a result of the state's repeated motions for extensions of
time. Dkt. 3. On November 17, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing the respondent to show
cause why the petition should not be granted. Dkt. 5. On December 29, 2020, the respondent filed
a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that the Court should not excuse Mr. Rodgers' failure to
exhaust. Dkt. 7. On January 20, 2021, Mr. Rodgers asked the Court to stay the proceedings and
hold the petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to exhaust his state court remedies.
Dkt. 9.

2

Case 1:20-cv-02859-JMS-TAB Document 10 Filed 02/18/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 153

II.
LEGAL STANDARD
"To protect the primary role of state courts in remedying alleged constitutional errors in
state criminal proceedings, federal courts will not review a habeas petition unless the prisoner has
fairly presented his claims throughout at least one complete round of state-court review, whether
on direct appeal of his conviction or in post-conviction proceedings." Johnson v. Foster, 786 F.3d
501, 504 (7th Cir. 2015) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
"Inordinate, unjustifiable delay in a state-court collateral proceeding excuses the
requirement of petitioners to exhaust their state-court remedies before seeking federal habeas
corpus relief." Jackson v. Duckworth, 112 F.3d 878, 881 (7th Cir. 1993). Where a delay of state
court proceedings has been resolved, the impediment to exhaustion is removed, and "the comity
concerns underlying the exhaustion requirement compel the federal courts to allow the state
litigation to run its course." Monegain v. Carlton, 576 F. App'x 598, 602 (7th Cir. 2014).
Federal habeas courts have the authority to stay the proceedings and hold the petition in
abeyance to allow the petitioner an opportunity to return to state court to exhaust his claims. Rhines
v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). Stay and abeyance should be used only in limited
circumstances, where there was good cause to excuse the failure to exhaust and where the
unexhausted claims may have some merit. Id. The purpose of this procedure is to shield a good
faith petitioner from the consequences of AEDPA's 1-year period of limitations. Id. at 275.
III.
DISCUSSION
At the time Mr. Rodgers filed his habeas petition, the proceedings in state court had been
frozen for more than a year. The state's deadline to file its proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law was still months away, and it was not clear whether the state would ask for yet another

3

Case 1:20-cv-02859-JMS-TAB Document 10 Filed 02/18/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 154

extension of time to submit this filing. After the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition,
arguing that the delay in post-conviction proceedings was neither inordinate nor unjustifiable, the
state submitted its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the post-conviction court
denied Mr. Rodgers' petition. Because the impediment to exhaustion has been removed,
Mr. Rodgers must return to state court and exhaust his state court remedies.
Mr. Rodgers' motion to stay the proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance implicitly
concedes this point. Rather than dismiss the petition without prejudice, he asks the Court to keep
the action open while he presents his claims to the Indiana Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
However, the purpose of the stay and abeyance procedure is to shield a good faith petitioner from
AEDPA's one-year period of limitations. Mr. Rodgers has not yet come up against this deadline.
Dismissing the action while he continues to litigate his claims in state court will not prejudice his
ability to later file a timely federal habeas petition. See Carpenter v. Douma, 840 F.3d 867, 869
(7th Cir. 2016) (AEDPA's one-year period of limitations is statutorily tolled for the "time during
which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect
to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending") (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)). Accordingly, the
motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the motion to stay the proceedings and hold the petition in
abeyance is DENIED.
IV.
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
"A state prisoner whose petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied by a federal district
court does not enjoy an absolute right to appeal." Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773 (2017).
Instead, a state prisoner must first obtain a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).
"A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In deciding whether a certificate of
4

Case 1:20-cv-02859-JMS-TAB Document 10 Filed 02/18/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 155

appealability should issue, "the only question is whether the applicant has shown that jurists of
reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists
could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."
Buck, 137 S. Ct. at 773 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Where a claim is resolved on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability should issue
only if reasonable jurists could disagree about the merits of the underlying constitutional claim
and about whether the procedural ruling was correct. Flores-Ramirez v. Foster, 811 F.3d 861, 865
(7th Cir. 2016) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District
Courts requires the district court to "issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a
final order adverse to the applicant." Because reasonable jurists would all agree that Mr. Rodgers'
petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his state court remedies, a
certificate of appealability is DENIED.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the respondent's motion to dismiss, dkt. [7], is
GRANTED. Mr. Rodgers' motion to stay the proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance,
dkt. [9], is DENIED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability shall not issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 2/18/2021

5

Case 1:20-cv-02859-JMS-TAB Document 10 Filed 02/18/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 156

Distribution:
CHRISTOPHER RODGERS
245615
INDIANA STATE PRISON
INDIANA STATE PRISON
Electronic Service Participant – Court Only
Caroline Templeton
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
[e-mail]

6