Wright v. Palmer

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Granting Petitioner's Motion to Stay Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment and Administratively Closing Case. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (PMil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KELLY WRIGHT, JR.,
Case Number: 2:11-CV-12617

Petitioner,
v.

HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

CARMEN PALMER,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT
AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE
Petitioner Kelly Wright, Jr., presently confined at the Michigan Reformatory in
Ionia, Michigan, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. In his application, filed pro se, Petitioner challenges his convictions for two counts
of first-degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, one count of
first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count of possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony. On the same date he filed the instant petition, Petitioner filed a
Motion to Stay Proceedings to Enforce a Judgment, in which he asks the Court to stay
further proceedings so that he may exhaust additional claims in state court.
State prisoners must exhaust available state remedies for each of the claims
presented in a habeas petition before a federal court may grant a writ of habeas corpus. 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004). The doctrine of

exhaustion of state remedies requires state prisoners to “fairly present” their claims as
federal constitutional issues in the state courts before raising those claims in a federal
habeas corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and (c); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999); McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674, 680-81 (6th Cir.2000);
Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir.1994). “A state prisoner is generally barred from
obtaining federal habeas relief unless the prisoner has properly presented his or her claims
through one ‘complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.’”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006), quoting O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. A
prisoner “‘fairly presents’ his claim to the state courts by citing a provision of the
Constitution, federal decisions using constitutional analysis, or state decisions employing
constitutional analysis in similar fact patterns.” Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506, 1516
(6th Cir.1993). A Michigan petitioner must present each ground to both Michigan
appellate courts before seeking federal habeas corpus relief. Woodford, 548 U.S. at 92.
The petitioner bears the burden of showing that state court remedies have been exhausted.
Rust, 17 F.3d at 160. Petitioner asks the Court to stay the habeas corpus proceedings so
that he may comply with the exhaustion requirement.
A federal district court has discretion to stay a habeas petition to allow a petitioner
to present his unexhausted claims to the state courts in the first instance and then return to
federal court on his perfected petition. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275-76
(2005). Stay and abeyance is available only in “limited circumstances” such as when the
one-year statute of limitations applicable to federal habeas actions poses a concern, and
2

when the petitioner demonstrates “good cause” for the failure to exhaust state court
remedies before proceeding in federal court and the unexhausted claims are not “plainly
meritless.” Id. at 277.
Petitioner has available remedies in the Michigan courts which must be exhausted
before proceeding in federal court. He may file a motion for relief from judgment
pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 6.500 with the state trial court and pursue his
unexhausted issues in the state appellate courts as necessary. Staying a habeas corpus
proceeding is appropriate where, as here, the original petition was timely filed, but a
second, exhausted habeas petition may be time barred by the AEDPA’s statute of
limitations. See Hargrove v. Brigano, 300 F.3d 717, 720-21 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court
finds that outright dismissal of the petition would jeopardize the timeliness of any future
habeas petition and that Petitioner has demonstrated the need for a stay.
When a district court determines that a stay is appropriate pending exhaustion of
state court remedies, the district court “should place reasonable time limits on a
petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Id. at 278. To ensure that Petitioner does not
delay in exhausting his state court remedies, the Court imposes upon Petitioner time
limits within which he must proceed. See Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir.
2002). Petitioner must present his claims in state court within sixty days from the date of
this Order. See id. Further, he must ask this Court to lift the stay within sixty days of
exhausting his state court remedies. See id. “If the conditions of the stay are not met, the
stay may later be vacated nunc pro tunc as of the date the stay was entered, and the
3

petition may be dismissed.” Palmer, 276 F.3d at 781 (internal quotation omitted).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings to
Enforce a Judgment [dkt. # 2] is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file a motion for relief
from judgment in state court within sixty days from the date of this Order and a motion to
lift the stay and amended petition in this Court within sixty days after the conclusion of
the state court proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to avoid administrative difficulties, the Clerk
of Court close this case for statistical purposes only. Nothing in this order or in the
related docket entry shall be considered a dismissal of this matter. Upon receipt of a
motion to lift the stay following exhaustion of state remedies, the Court may order the
Clerk to reopen this case for statistical purposes.
DATED: August 16, 2011

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
United States Senior District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
August 16, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Shawntel R. Jackson
Case Manager

4