Baker v. Stewart

Filing 23

OPINION and ORDER Holding in Abeyance the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Administratively closing the case. Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (BSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CORRINE BAKER,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil No. 2:15-CV-11629
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SHAWN BREWER,
Respondent.
____________________/
OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE
THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, through her counsel David S. Steingold, challenging her
conviction for second-degree murder, M.C.L.A. § 750.317; and seconddegree child abuse, M.C.L.A. § 750.136(b)(3). Petitioner has now filed a
motion to hold the petition in abeyance during the pendency of her request
for a review of her criminal conviction by the Michigan Attorney General
Office’s Conviction Integrity Unit. (CIU). The Court holds the petition in
abeyance and stays the proceedings under the terms outlined in this
opinion during the pendency of the review of petitioner’s case by the CIU.
The Court administratively closes the case.

-1-

A federal district court is authorized to stay fully exhausted federal
habeas petitions pending the exhaustion of other claims in the state courts.
See Bowling v. Haeberline, 246 F. App’x 303, 306 (6th Cir. 2007)(a habeas
court is entitled to delay a decision in a habeas petition that contains only
exhausted claims “when considerations of comity and judicial economy
would be served”); see also Thomas v. Stoddard, 89 F. Supp. 3d 937, 943
(E.D. Mich. 2015).
The Court grants petitioner’s motion to hold the petition in abeyance
while she seeks review of her conviction by the Conviction Integrity Unit.
The outright dismissal of the petition, even if it is without prejudice, might
bar review of petitioner’s claims in this Court due to the expiration of the
one year statute of limitations contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A common
reason for holding a habeas petition in abeyance arises when the original
petition was timely filed, but a second, exhausted habeas petition would be
time barred by the AEDPA’s statute of limitations. See Hargrove v. Brigano,
300 F.3d 717, 720-21 (6th Cir. 2002).
However, even where a district court determines that a stay is
appropriate pending exhaustion, the district court “should place reasonable

-2-

time limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Rhines v. Weber,
544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005).
The Court holds the petition in abeyance to allow petitioner to seek
review of her conviction by the Attorney General Office’s Conviction
Integrity Unit. This tolling is conditioned upon petitioner returning to federal
court within thirty days of the Conviction Integrity Unit issuing an adverse
decision. Hargrove, 300 F.3d at 721.
III. ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) The proceedings are STAYED and the Court holds the
habeas petition in abeyance. Petitioner shall move to reopen
her habeas case within 30 days of any adverse decision by
the Conviction Integrity Unit. Failure to do so will result in the
Court lifting the stay and adjudicating the merits of the claims
raised in petitioner’s original and amended habeas petitions.
(2) To avoid administrative difficulties, the Clerk of Court shall
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. See Thomas, 89 F.
Supp. 3d at 943-944.
(3) Upon receipt of a motion to reinstate the habeas petition
following exhaustion of state remedies, the Court will order the
Clerk to reopen this case for statistical purposes.
Dated: February 6, 2020
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-