Woodley v. Smith

Filing 12

ORDER granting 11 Motion to hold petition for writ of habeas corpus in abeyance and administratively closing the case. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARSEILLES D. WOODLEY,

Case No. 2:17-cv-11468

Petitioner,

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.
JOHN DAVIDS,
Respondent.

/

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION
TO HOLD PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN ABEYANCE [11] AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE
On May 5, 2017, Petitioner Marseilles D. Woodley, confined at the Ionia
Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and challenged his convictions for first-degree murder,
M.C.L.A. 750.316(1)(a); assault with intent to murder, M.C.L.A. 750.83; felon in
possession of a firearm, M.C.L.A. 750.224f; and felony-firearm, M.C.L.A. 750.227b.
ECF 1. On May 15, 2017, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to hold his petition
in abeyance while he exhausted additional claims in the state courts. ECF 4. On July
10, 2019, the Court granted Petitioner's motion to lift the stay and to reopen the
proceedings. ECF 8. Petitioner's amended complaint was also accepted as filed. ECF
7, 8. On October 31, 2019, Petitioner field a second motion to hold his petition in
abeyance while he exhausts additional claims in state court based on newly
discovered evidence. ECF 11. For the following reasons, the Court will grant
Petitioner's motion.

1

The Court is authorized to stay a fully exhausted federal habeas petition
pending the exhaustion of additional claims in the state courts. See, e.g., Nowaczyk v.
Warden, N.H. State Prison, 299 F.3d 69, 77–79 (1st Cir. 2002) ("When unusual
circumstances—rather than a flaw in the petition itself—make it imprudent to
address the § 2254 petition immediately, the collateral attack should be stayed rather
than dismissed.") (quotations and alteration omitted). Moreover, the Court bears a
"heavy obligation to exercise jurisdiction" over a timely filed habeas petition, id. at
82 (quotations omitted), to avoid improper preclusion of federal review. Hargrove v.
Brigano, 300 F. 3d 717, 720–21 (6th Cir. 2002).
Additionally, "if this Court were to proceed in parallel with state postconviction proceedings, there is a risk of wasting judicial resources if the state court
might grant relief on the unexhausted claim." Thomas v. Stoddard, 89 F. Supp. 3d
937, 942 (E.D. Mich. 2015). A stay will not prejudice Respondent, whereas without a
stay Petitioner "could be prejudiced by having to simultaneously fight two
proceedings in separate courts" and potentially facing "the heavy burden of satisfying
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)'s second-or-successive-petition requirements[.]" Id. at 943.
Here, Petitioner claims that he may have potential Brady violations claims
based on newly discovered evidence. ECF 11, PgID 145. But a motion for relief from
judgment at the state court would be his second motion for relief filed, and generally,
under M.C.R. 6.502(G)(1), a defendant can only file one motion for relief from
judgment with regard to a criminal conviction. See Banks v. Jackson, 149 F. App'x
414, 418 (6th Cir. 2005). M.C.R. 6.502(G)(2), however, states that a defendant may

2

file a second or subsequent motion based on a retroactive change in law that occurred
after the first motion for relief from judgment or based on a claim of new evidence
that was not discovered before the first motion. Id. at 418. Because Petitioner may
fall under the newly discovered evidence exception and therefore may be permitted
to bring a second motion for relief in state court, the Court will hold his petition in
abeyance while he pursues his unexhausted claims in state court. See Cunningham
v. Hudson, 756 F.3d 477, 485–87 (6th Cir. 2014).
To ensure there are no delays, the Court will impose reasonable time limits for
Petitioner "to present claims to state courts and return to federal court[.]" Palmer v.
Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, Petitioner must initiate his
state post-conviction remedies within 60 days of receiving this Court's order and
return to federal court within 60 days of completing the exhaustion of state court
postconviction remedies. Hargrove, 300 F. 3d at 721.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's motion to hold
petition for writ of habeas corpus [2] is GRANTED and the proceedings are
STAYED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must FILE a motion for relief
from judgment in state court within 60 days of receipt of this order. He shall
NOTIFY the Court in writing that the state-court motion has been filed. If he fails
to file a motion in state court or fails to notify the Court within 60 days of receipt of

3

this order, the Court will lift the stay, reinstate the first amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus, and address only the claims raised in the first amended petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that after Petitioner fully exhausts his
additional claims in state court, he shall FILE an amended petition that includes the
additional claims within 60 days after the conclusion of his state court postconviction proceedings, along with a motion to lift the stay. If he fails to do so, the
Court will lift the stay, and address only the claims raised in the first amended
petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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. Upon receipt of a motion to
reinstate the petition following exhaustion of state remedies, the Court may order the
Clerk to reopen the case.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2019

s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on November 12, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ David P. Parker
Case Manager

4