Byars v. Larson
Filing
11
OPINION and ORDER Denying 10 MOTION to Stay, Dismissing Without Prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Denying a Certificate of Appealability and Denying Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES DEAN BYARS, #234269,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:13-CV-11694
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
v.
JEFFREY LARSON,
Respondent.
________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY,
DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY,
AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
I.
Introduction
Michigan prisoner James Dean Byers (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the voluntariness of his
no contest plea conviction for third-degree criminal sexual conduct which was imposed in
the Washtenaw County Circuit Court. Petitioner was sentenced to five to 15 years
imprisonment in 2011. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion to stay the
proceedings because he has filed a motion for relief from judgment in the state trial court
concerning his conviction. For the reasons stated, the Court denies the motion to stay and
dismisses without prejudice the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also
denies a certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal.
II.
Analysis
A prisoner filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 must
first exhaust all state remedies. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)
(“state prisoners must give the state courts one full fair opportunity to resolve any
constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established appellate
review process”); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). A Michigan prisoner
must raise each issue he or she seeks to present in a federal habeas proceeding to the state
courts for review. The claims must be “fairly presented” to the state courts, meaning that
the petitioner must have asserted both the factual and legal bases for the claims in the
state courts. McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674, 681 (6th Cir. 2000); see also Williams
v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 806 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing McMeans). The claims must also
be raised in the state courts as federal constitutional issues. Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d
365, 368 (6th Cir. 1984). Each issue must be presented to both the Michigan Court of
Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Hafley
v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990); Welch v. Burke, 49 F. Supp. 2d 992, 998
(E.D. Mich. 1999). The burden is on the petitioner to prove exhaustion. Rust, 17 F.3d at
160.
In this case, Petitioner states that he has not exhausted all of his potential habeas
claims in the state courts and that he has a motion for relief from judgment pending in the
2
state trial court concerning the conviction at issue in this case. Petitioner must complete
the state court process before seeking habeas relief in federal court. Witzke v. Bell, No.
07-CV-15315, 2007 WL 4557674 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2007); Harris v. Prelisnik, No.
06-CV-15472, 2006 WL 3759945 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006). Federal habeas law
provides that a habeas petitioner is only entitled to relief if he can show that the state
court adjudication of his claims resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme
Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The state courts must first be given a
fair opportunity to rule upon all of Petitioner’s claims before he can present them in
federal court. Otherwise, the Court cannot apply the standard found at 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Even if Petitioner’s pending motion does not concern his current claims, that
proceeding may result in the reversal of his conviction on another ground, thereby
mooting the federal questions presented. See Humphrey v. Scutt, No. 08-CV-14605, 2008
WL 4858091, *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2008) (citing Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632,
634 (9th Cir.1983), and Woods v. Gilmore, 26 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1095 (C.D. Ill. 1998));
Szymanski v. Martin, 99-CV-76196-DT, 2000 WL 654916 (E.D. Mich. April 13, 2000).
Non-prejudicial dismissal of the petition, rather than a stay of the proceedings, is
warranted under such circumstances.
Moreover, a stay is not necessary in this case because the one-year statute of
limitations applicable to federal habeas actions, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), does not pose a
concern. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 4, 2013. Byars v.
3
Michigan, _ U.S. _, 133 S. Ct. 1500 (March 4, 2013). Petitioner then had one year to file
his federal habeas petition or seek additional state court review. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
Petitioner dated his habeas petition on April 9, 2013. He apparently then filed a motion
for relief from judgment in the state trial court, which remains pending. At this juncture,
therefore, just over one month of the one-year limitations period has expired. Petitioner
thus has sufficient time – more than 10 months – to file a new petition containing all of
his habeas claims upon the completion of state court remedies. A stay is unwarranted.
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner has a matter pending in
state court concerning the conviction at issue in this case and that a stay of the
proceedings is unwarranted. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to stay
the proceedings and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. The Court makes no determination as to the merits of Petitioner’s claims.
Before Petitioner may appeal the Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability
must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). 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). When a court denies relief on
procedural grounds without addressing the merits, a certificate of appealability should
issue if it is shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petitioner
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v.
4
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Reasonable jurists could not debate the
correctness of the Court’s procedural ruling. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability. The Court also DENIES leave to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal as an appeal would be frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a). This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 17, 2013
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each
attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July 17,
2013.
s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?