Carter v. Palmer

Filing 6

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Extend Stay. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHELTON CARTER,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:14-CV-11030
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v.
CARMEN PALMER,
Respondent.
______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND THE STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS
This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner Shelton
Carter (“Petitioner”) was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm
less than murder, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.84, assault with intent to rob while
armed, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.89, and possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b, following a jury trial in
the Wayne County Circuit Court in 2009. He was sentenced to 4 to 10 years
imprisonment on the assault with intent to do great bodily harm conviction, a
concurrent term of 14 to 40 years imprisonment on the assault with intent to rob
conviction, and a consecutive term of 2 years imprisonment on the felony firearm
conviction.

In his pleadings, Petitioner raises claims concerning the trial court’s policy
of closing the courtroom for jury selection, trial counsel’s failure to object to the
courtroom closure, failure to object to a defective verdict form, and failure to
investigate, appellate counsel’s failure to raise the courtroom closure issue on
appeal, the trial court’s factual determination regarding photographic arrays shown
to the victim, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the jurors’ submission of
questions to witnesses. This case was initially stayed and administratively closed
to allow Petitioner to exhaust state court remedies as to three courtroom closure
claims.
This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner’s motion to extend the
stay. Petitioner asserts that he completed the state court process as to his
unexhausted claims, but now seeks additional time to exhaust state court remedies
as to five new claims concerning double jeopardy, alleged jurisdictional defects
arising from the preliminary examination, the sufficiency of the evidence under the
aiding and abetting statute, and the indictment, and the denial of counsel at trial,
which he believes are based upon newly-discovered evidence. Petitioner indicates
that he is preparing another successive motion for relief from judgment for
submission to the state trial court. Having considered the matter, the Court finds
that an extension of the stay is warranted to allow Petitioner to fully exhaust state
2

court remedies as to his additional claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to extend the stay of proceedings
is GRANTED and this case remains stayed. The stay is conditioned on
Petitioner’s return to this Court with a motion to re-open this case and proceed on
an amended petition within THIRTY (30) DAYS of exhausting state court
remedies. See Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002) (adopting
approach taken in Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374, 381 (2d Cir. 2001)). Should
Petitioner fail to comply with the Court’s conditions, his case may be subject to
dismissal. This case remains CLOSED for administrative purposes pending
compliance with these conditions.

Dated: October 9, 2015
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Shelton Carter, #723228
MICHIGAN REFORMATORY
1342 WEST MAIN STREET
IONIA, MI 48846

3