Williams v. Tanner et al

Filing 24

ORDER AND REASONS - The Court DENIES Williams's motion 23 to stay the proceedings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Williams has 30 days from the entry of this order to amend his petition, alleging only those claims that the Magistrate Judge has determined are exhausted and thus properly before the Court.. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/10/15. (NEF: Mag4)(jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KIRK WILLIAMS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-2693

ROBERT TANNER, ET AL.

SECTION: R(4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Kirk William’s petition for federal habeas corpus
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The Magistrate Judge recommends that
Williams's petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state
court remedies.2 In response, Williams does not dispute the Magistrate
Judge's conclusion that eight claims presented in his petition are unexhausted.
Instead, Williams moves the Court to stay these proceedings to allow
petitioner to litigate his unexhausted claims in state court.3
A federal habeas petition should typically be dismissed if the petitioner
has failed to exhaust all available state remedies. Piller v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,
227 (2004) ("[F]ederal district courts must dismiss 'mixed' habeas corpus
petitions--those containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims.") (citing
1

R. Doc. 3.

2

R. Doc. 22 at 14.

3

R. Doc. 23.

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982)). The dismissal without prejudice of a
"mixed" petition, however, may result in a subsequent petition being barred
by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). See
Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001) (holding that section 2244(d)'s
one-year limitation period is not tolled during the pendency of federal habeas
proceedings). In light of this dilemma, federal courts are authorized to stay a
habeas petition and hold it in abeyance while a petitioner exhausts his claims
in state court. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). Such stays,
however, are available only in limited circumstances. Id. A district court
should stay federal habeas proceedings to allow a petitioner to exhaust state
remedies only when the district court finds that (1) the petitioner has good
cause for failure to exhaust his claim, (2) the claim is not plainly meritless, and
(3) the petitioner has not engaged in intentional delay.

Schillereff v.

Quarterman, 304 F. App'x 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Rhines, 544 U.S.
at 277-78).
Here, Williams concedes that he has failed to exhaust his state court
remedies as to eight of the claims raised in his federal habeas petition.
Williams has not, however, explained his failure to exhaust these claims.4

4

See R. Doc. 23.
2

Without good cause to excuse Williams’s failure to exhaust, the Court finds
that a stay and abeyance is unwarranted. See Byrd v. Thaler, No. 4:10-cv-021,
2010 WL 2228548, at *4 (N.D. Tex. June 3, 2010) (finding it unnecessary to
address remaining Rhines factors when petitioner fails to demonstrate good
cause).
Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that dismissing Williams’s petition
without prejudice would effectively preclude federal review of his exhausted
claims because any subsequent petition would be barred by section 2244(d)'s
one-year limitations period.5 Under these circumstances, a district court
should allow a petitioner to withdraw the unexhausted claims and litigate the
exhausted claims properly before the court. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278 ("[I]f
a petitioner presents a district court with a mixed petition and the court
determines that a stay and abeyance is inappropriate, the court should allow
the petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and to proceed with the
exhausted claims if dismissal of the entire petition would unreasonably impair
5

Following the state trial court’s resentencing on January 14,
2011, Williams first pursued post-conviction relief in state court on October
26, 2011. The Louisiana Supreme Court ultimately denied his writ
application on September 19, 2014. Williams then filed his federal habeas
petition on December 12, 2014. Thus, the one-year limitations period for
filing a subsequent petition has already expired. See Duncan, 533 U.S. at
181-82 (holding that section 2244(d)'s one-year limitation period continues
to run during the pendency of federal habeas proceedings).
3

the petitioner's right to obtain habeas relief."). Accordingly, the Court will
allow Williams 30 days from the entry of this order to amend his federal
habeas petition to state only those claims that he has already exhausted, as
identified by the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and to
withdraw those unexhausted claims that he wishes to pursue in state court.6
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Williams’s motion to stay
the proceedings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Williams has 30 days from
the entry of this order to amend his petition, alleging only those claims that
the Magistrate Judge has determined are exhausted and thus properly before
the Court.

10th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of September, 2015.

SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

R. Doc. 22 at 12.
4