Thibodeau v. Campbell
Filing
13
OPINION and ORDER granting Petitioner's 11 Letter-Motion To Hold Proceedings In Abeyance And Administratively Closing Case. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (JCur)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRYAN THIBODEAU,
Petitioner,
vs.
Civil Action No. 15-CV-13796
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent.
______________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S LETTER-MOTION TO HOLD
PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Bryan Thibodeau’s letter-motion to
hold these proceedings in abeyance so he may exhaust additional claims in state court [docket
entry 11].
Petitioner, a Michigan state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his 2012 convictions on thirty-seven counts,
including conducting a criminal enterprise, felon in possession of a firearm, first and second degree
home invasion, conspiracy to commit first and second degree home invasion, attempted first and
second degree home invasion, larceny, safe breaking, and possession of burglary tools. Pet. pp.
3–4.
Before filing a federal habeas petition, a petitioner must first exhaust all available
remedies in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). A district court may stay a habeas proceeding
pending resolution of state post-conviction proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276
(2005) (“District courts do ordinarily have authority to issue stays where such a stay would be a
proper exercise of discretion.”) (citations omitted). In Rhines, the Supreme Court held if outright
dismissal of a petition would jeopardize the timeliness of a future petition, a district court may
hold habeas proceedings in abeyance while the petitioner exhausts unexhausted claims. Id. at 278.
The present petition presents only exhausted claims. Where a habeas petition
presents only exhausted claims, the Court may either adjudicate the exhausted claims while the
petitioner simultaneously exhausts additional claims in state court or stay the petition while the
petitioner seeks state-court collateral relief. This Court’s decision whether to grant a stay is
informed “by the potential for parallel federal habeas and state post-conviction proceedings and
Rhines.” Thomas v. Stoddard, 89 F. Supp. 3d 937, 942–43 (E.D. Mich. 2015). It is better that
petitioner’s claims be first decided by the state court, which may conduct an evidentiary hearing
or otherwise allow petitioner to supplement the record. Granting plaintiff’s request would not
cause prejudice to respondent. Further, if the Court denied the stay and decided the petition before
completion of state-court collateral review, petitioner would have to satisfy a higher burden to
receive authorization to file a successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).
If a district court determines that a stay is appropriate pending exhaustion of state
court remedies, the district court “should place reasonable time limits on a petitioner’s trip to state
court and back.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. To ensure that there are no delays by petitioner in
exhausting his state-court remedies, this Court will impose time limits within which petitioner
must proceed with his state-court post-conviction proceedings. See Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F. 3d
777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). The stay is conditioned upon petitioner diligently pursuing relief in the
state courts by filing timely appeals in his post-conviction proceeding, and then by returning to
federal court within sixty days after exhausting his state-court remedies. See Hargrove v. Brigano,
300 F. 3d 717, 718 (6th Cir. 2002). See also Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 411 (6th Cir. 2014)
2
(holding that dismissal of a habeas petition is appropriate where a petitioner has failed to comply
with the terms of a stay).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s letter-motion to hold the petition in abeyance is
granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within sixty days after exhausting his state-court
remedies, petitioner must move to reopen this proceeding and to amend the petition to include his
newly-exhausted claim(s). Should Petitioner fail to comply with any of the time limits or
conditions imposed by this order, his petition will be dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court administratively close this
case.
Dated: December 14, 2017
Detroit, Michigan
s/Bernard A. Friedman
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on December 14, 2017.
s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams
Case Manager
3
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?