Owens v. Winn
Filing
11
ORDER Granting Petitioner's 10 MOTION to Stay, Closing this Case for Administrative Purposes, and Denying 9 MOTION for Extension of Time as Moot. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN D. OWENS,
Petitioner,
Case Number: 2:15-cv-11778
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
THOMAS WINN,
Respondent.
/
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY (ECF # 10),
CLOSING THIS CASE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, AND
DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT (ECF #9)
On May 18, 2015, state prisoner Steven D. Owens (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). (See ECF #1). The Petition
challenges these convictions: conspiracy to assault with intent to do great bodily harm less
than murder; solicitation to assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder;
assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder; bribing, intimidating, or
interfering with a witness in a criminal case; and inciting or procuring one to commit perjury.
Respondent has filed an answer in opposition (see ECF #7) and the state court record (see
ECF #8). The matter is now before the Court on Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings and
hold the Petition in abeyance (“Motion to Stay”) (see ECF #10), and Petitioner’s motion for
extension of time to file reply to Respondent’s answer (“Motion for Extension of Time”) (see
ECF #9). Respondent has not answered either motion.
Petitioner seeks a stay to allow him to raise two claims in state court: (i) one of the
prior convictions supporting third habitual offender sentencing enhancement was the result
of an uncounseled plea; and (ii) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this
claim on direct review. A prisoner filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. §2254 must first exhaust state remedies for all of his claims. 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”). To satisfy this requirement, the claims must
be “fairly presented” to the state courts, meaning that the prisoner must have asserted both
the factual and legal bases for the claims in the state courts. See McMeans v. Brigano, 228
F.3d 674, 681 (6th Cir. 2000). The claims must also be presented to the state courts as
federal constitutional issues. See Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 1984). A
Michigan prisoner must present each issue to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the
Michigan Supreme Court to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See Beatty v. Caruso, 64 F.
App’x 945, 948 (6th Cir. 2003); Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990).
While the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, a “strong presumption” exists that a
petitioner must exhaust available state remedies before seeking federal habeas review. See
Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 131, 134-35 (1987). The burden is on the petitioner to
prove exhaustion. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).
2
A federal district court has discretion to stay a habeas petition to allow a petitioner to
present unexhausted claims to the state courts in the first instance and then return to federal
court on a perfected petition. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005) (recognizing
court’s discretion to stay and establishing criteria for stay). A stay may be granted when the
petitioner has “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 278 (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982)).
The Court finds that a stay is warranted in this case. First, the dismissal of this case
while Petitioner pursues state remedies could result in a subsequent petition being barred by
the one-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Second, Petitioner states
that his unexhausted claims were not presented in state court because his appellate attorney
was ineffective. An appellate attorney cannot be expected to raise his own ineffective
assistance on appeal. Combs v. Coyle, 205 F.3d 269, 276 (6th Cir. 2000). Thus, the Court
finds that Petitioner has asserted good cause for failing exhaust his claims. Third, the
unexhausted claims do not appear to be plainly meritless. Fourth, there is no evidence of
intentional delay. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes it is not an abuse of
discretion to stay this case while Petitioner pursues state remedies for his unexhausted
claims.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (ECF #10), and holds
the Petition in abeyance pending Petitioner’s exhaustion of state court remedies as to his
additional claims.
3
The stay is conditioned on Petitioner presenting the unexhausted claims to the state
courts within 60 days of the filing date of this order by filing a motion for relief from
judgment with the state trial court. See Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d 679, 683 (6th Cir. 2002)
(discussing procedure for staying habeas proceeding pending exhaustion of state court
remedies). The stay is further conditioned on Petitioner’s return to this Court, by the filing
of a motion to reopen and amend the petition, using the same caption and case number
included at the top of this Order, within 60 days of fully exhausting his 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
any of these conditions, the Petition may be dismissed. See Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409,
411 (6th Cir. 2014) (holding that dismissal of a habeas petition is appropriate where a
petitioner has failed to comply with the terms of a stay). This case is CLOSED for
administrative purposes pending compliance with the conditions set forth in this Order.
The Court DENIES AS MOOT Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF #9).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 21, 2016
4
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
counsel of record on January 21, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113
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?