Stermer v. Warren

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE, AND DENYING THE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LINDA KAY STERMER,
Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-14013

Petitioner,

Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

v.
MILLICENT WARREN,
Respondent.
/

OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN
ABEYANCE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE, AND DENYING THE
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE AS MOOT
This is a habeas case filed by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan
prisoner Linda Kay Stermer is incarcerated by the Michigan Department of Corrections,
currently housed at the Huron Valley Women’s Correctional Facility in Ypsilanti, Michigan,
where she is serving a life sentence for the murder of her husband, Todd Stermer, on January
7, 2007. Petitioner was convicted on January 13, 2010, following a six-day jury trial in the
Circuit Court in Van Buren County, Michigan. She was sentenced on February 8, 2010. The
state appellate courts affirmed her conviction and sentence. People v. Stermer, No. 297057,
2011 WL 2507848, at *1, 4 (Mich. Ct. App. June 23, 2011); People v. Stermer, 490 Mich.
913, 805 N.W.2d 434 (2011) (Table).
On September 11, 2012, Petitioner filed this habeas petition, pro se, alleging the
following three claims: (1) her rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated, (2) the trial
court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict (because there was insufficient

evidence to support her conviction), and (3) the verdict was against the great weight of the
evidence.

Because the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to exhaust her Fourth

Amendment claim in the state courts, the Court will hold the petition in abeyance and stay
the proceedings under the terms outlined in this opinion, so that she may return to the state
courts to exhaust her additional claim. The Court will also administratively close the case.
I. Background
Following Petitioner’s sentencing, she filed an appeal of right with the Michigan
Court of Appeals, raising claims concerning her bindover and the trial court’s decision in
denying her motion for a directed verdict and a new trial. On June 23, 2011, the Court of
Appeals affirmed her conviction and sentence. Stermer, 2011 WL 2507848, at *1, 4.
Subsequently, Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal that decision with the
Michigan Supreme Court, raising the same claims raised in the Court of Appeals. On
November 21, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal because it was “not
persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.” Stermer, 490
Mich. 913, 805 N.W.2d 434.
Petitioner neither filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court
nor a motion for relief from judgment with the state trial court. Rather, she filed the pending
habeas petition.
II. Discussion
State prisoners must exhaust available state remedies for each of the claims presented
in a habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004)
2

(before seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus, a state prisoner must exhaust available state
remedies). The doctrine of exhaustion of state-court remedies requires the petitioner to
“fairly present” his or her claims as federal constitutional issues in the state courts before
raising them in a federal habeas-corpus petition. 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, 68081 (6th Cir. 2000). “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 [or her] 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. See
Woodford, 548 U.S. at 92. The petitioner bears the burden of showing that state-court
remedies have been exhausted. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).
A federal district court has discretion to stay a habeas petition to allow a petitioner to
present her unexhausted claim or claims to the state courts in the first instance and then
return to federal court on her 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 when
the petitioner demonstrates “good cause” for the failure to exhaust state-court remedies
3

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. She may file a motion for relief from judgment pursuant
to Michigan Court Rule 6.500 with the state trial court and pursue her unexhausted issue or
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 therefore will
stay Petitioner’s habeas petition.
When a district court determines that a stay is appropriate pending exhaustion of statecourt remedies, the district court should place reasonable time limits on a petitioner’s trip to
state court and back. To ensure that Petitioner does not delay in exhausting her state-court
remedies, the Court imposes upon her time limits within which she must proceed. See
Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). Petitioner must present her claim or
claims in state court within sixty days from the date of this order. See id. Further, she must
ask this Court to lift the stay within sixty days of exhausting her 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 petition may be dismissed.” Id. 781 (internal
quotation omitted).
4

III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is held in
abeyance pending exhaustion of Petitioner’s claim. 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 statecourt proceedings.
To avoid administrative difficulties, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE
this case for statistical purposes only. Nothing in this order or in the related docket entry
shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this matter.
It is further ORDERED that upon receipt of a motion to reinstate the habeas petition
following exhaustion of state remedies, the Court may order the Clerk to reopen this case for
statistical purposes.
Given the Court’s decision, is it further ORDERED that Respondent’s “Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response/Reply” [ECF No. 9] is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: December 10, 2012
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on December 10, 2012 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court
sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was
mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on December 10, 2012: Linda Stermer.
s/Michael E. Lang
Deputy Clerk to
District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow
[phone]

5