Rodriguez v. Smith

Filing 6

ORDER granting petitioner's motion for a stay 3 and closing case for administrative purposes. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh (MBea)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAURENCIO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 15-11155
HONORABLE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

WILLIE SMITH,
Respondent.
___________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A STAY
(Dkt. 3) AND CLOSING CASE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES
I. Introduction
This matter has come before the Court on a pro se habeas corpus petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a motion to hold the petition in abeyance. Petitioner Laurencio
Rodriguez is a state prisoner at Ionia Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan. He is
challenging a Shiawassee County conviction and sentence of 450-850 months for
second-degree murder.
On appeal from his conviction, Petitioner claimed that: (1) the trial court erred in
denying his motion for a change of venue; (2) he was denied his right to be present
during a conference on juror questionnaires; and (3) he was denied effective assistance
of counsel when defense counsel (a) failed to use all his peremptory challenges to
excuse certain jurors and (b) failed to object to petitioner’s absence from the conference
on juror questionnaires. The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s claims and
affirmed his conviction. See People v. Rodriguez, No. 307317, 2013 WL 3766591
(Mich. Ct. App. July 18, 2013). On December 23, 2013, the Michigan Supreme Court
-1-

denied leave to appeal because it was not persuaded to review the issues. See People
v. Rodriguez, 495 Mich. 915; 840 N.W.2d 370 (2013) (table).
Petitioner signed and dated his habeas corpus petition on March 22, 2015. The
Court understands the petition to allege that: (1) petitioner is actually innocent of the
crime for which he was convicted; (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel
because defense counsel (a) failed to present a defense, (b) misled petitioner into
thinking he would testify, (c) failed to appear at key court hearings, (d) failed to object to
petitioner’s absence during all jury-selection proceedings, (e) failed to make objections
in petitioner’s behalf at trial, (f) failed to interview or contact witnesses, and (g) “relied on
the prosecution to provide relevant defense needs;” and (3) the State failed to prove
that petitioner caused the victim’s death.
In his motion for a stay, petitioner alleges that he simultaneously filed a motion
for relief from judgment in the state trial court when he filed his habeas petition. He
seeks to have his habeas petition held in abeyance while he pursues state remedies.
II. Discussion
The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies requires state prisoners to fairly
present all their claims to the state courts before raising their claims in a federal habeas
corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842
(1999). This requirement is satisfied if a prisoner “invok[es] one complete round of the
State’s established appellate review process,” including a petition for discretionary
review in the state supreme court, “when that review is part of the ordinary appellate
review procedure in the State.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. at 845, 847. Thus, to
properly exhaust state remedies, a prisoner must fairly present the factual and legal
basis for each habeas claim to the state court of appeals and to the state supreme court
-2-

before raising the claims in a federal habeas corpus petition. Wagner v. Smith, 581
F.3d 410, 414-15 (6th Cir. 2009).
With the possible exception of habeas claim 2(d) (defense counsel’s failure to
object to petitioner’s absence at a jury-selection proceeding), petitioner appears to be
raising claims that he has not previously presented to the state courts. He claims that
he is waiting for the state court to rule on his claims. Although federal district courts
ordinarily must dismiss a habeas petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted
claims, Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982), a dismissal of this case in all
likelihood would result in a subsequent petition being barred by the one-year statute of
limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has stated that
federal district courts have authority to grant stays and, in appropriate cases, to stay a
case while an inmate returns to state court to exhaust state remedies for previously
unexhausted claims. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275-76 (2005). After the inmate
exhausts state remedies, the district court can lift its stay and allow the inmate to
proceed in federal court. Id. at 275-76.
This stay-and-abeyance procedure is appropriate in “limited circumstances,”
such as when “the petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted
claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner engaged
in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. at 277-78. In such circumstances, the
district court should stay, rather than dismiss, the habeas petition, because “the
petitioner’s interest in obtaining federal review of his claims outweighs the competing
interests in finality and speedy resolution of federal petitions.” Id. at 278.
Freestanding claims of actual innocence, such as petitioner’s first claim,
generally are not a basis for which habeas corpus relief may be granted. Herrera v.
-3-

Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 404-05 (1993). But petitioner’s other claims are not plainly
meritless, and there is no indication that petitioner is engaged in intentionally dilatory
litigation tactics. Moreover, he alleges that his appellate attorney failed to raise his
claims on direct appeal even though he asked the attorney to include the issues in his
appeal. The Court therefore believes it would not be an abuse of discretion to grant
petitioner a stay. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS petitioner’s motion to stay these
proceedings and to hold his habeas petition in abeyance pending exhaustion of state
remedies (Dkt. 3).
If petitioner is unsuccessful in state court and wishes to re-open this case, he
must file an amended habeas corpus petition and a motion to re-open this case, using
the same case number that appears on this order. The amended petition and motion to
re-open this case must be filed within ninety (90) days of exhausting state remedies for
his habeas claims. Failure to comply with this condition of the stay could result in the
dismissal of the habeas petition. Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 411 (6th Cir. 2014),
cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1403 (2015).
The Court orders the Clerk of the Court to close this case for administrative
purposes. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an adjudication of petitioner’s
claims.
Dated: April 21, 2015
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
April 21, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on
Laurencio Rodriguez #649211, Ionia Maximum Correctional
Facility, 1576 W. Bluewater Highway, Ionia, MI 48846.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-5-