Daniels v. Gidley

Filing 4

ORDER Granting Petitioner's 2 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AARON DANIELS, #740153,
Petitioner,
Case No. 14-CV-11755
v.
HON. MARK. A. GOLDSMITH
LORI GIDLEY,
Respondent.
____________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY (Dkt. 2)
This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, proceeding pro
se, is incarcerated at the Oaks Correctional Facility in Manistee, Michigan. On August 3, 2010,
following a jury trial in the Wayne Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of (i) first-degree
murder in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.316, (ii) armed robbery in violation of Mich.
Comp. Laws §750.529, and (iii) possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony in
violation of Mich. Comp. Laws §750.227b. Pet. at 1 (Dkt. 1). On September 8, 2010, Petitioner
was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of life for the murder conviction, 20-to-40 years for the
armed robbery conviction, and a consecutive two-year sentence for the felony firearm
conviction. Id. The petition raises three claims: (i) Petitioner was denied the right to substitute
counsel before trial; (ii) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of
manslaughter; and (iii) Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel for
failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Id. at 5-11.
Petitioner has also filed a motion to stay the proceedings. Pet. Mot. (Dkt. 2). He
enumerates an additional seven claims he wishes to raise in his petition that have not yet been
exhausted in the state courts: (i) Petitioner’s right to a public trial was violated by the exclusion

of the public from jury selection; (ii) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
exclusion of the public; (iii) the trial court engage in an ex parte communication with members
of the jury; (iv) Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in his overall performance; (v)
Petitioner has been denied access to his transcripts; (vi) the jury instructions were erroneous; and
(vii) Petitioner was denied the opportunity to interview a key prosecution witness prior to trial.
Id. ¶ 6. He asserts that he will file a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court, raising
these claims. Id.
The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies requires state prisoners to “fairly present”
their claims as federal constitutional issues in the state courts before raising those claims in a
federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and (c); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 842 (1999). Federal law provides that a habeas petitioner is only entitled to relief if he can
show that the state court adjudication of his claims resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The state courts must be given an
opportunity to rule upon all of Petitioner’s claims before he can present those claims on habeas
review. Otherwise, this Court is unable to apply the standard found at 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The exhaustion requirement is satisfied if a prisoner invokes one complete round of the
state’s established appellate review process.

O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845.

To satisfy the

exhaustion requirement, the claims must be “fairly presented” to the state courts, meaning that
the petitioner must have asserted both the factual and legal bases for the claims in the state
courts. 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. Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d 365,
368 (6th Cir. 1984). For a Michigan prisoner, each issue must be presented to both the Michigan

2

Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Hafley
v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990). The burden is on the petitioner to prove
exhaustion. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).
The Michigan Rules of Court provide a process through which Petitioner may raise his
unexhausted claims. See M.Ct.R. 6.500 et seq. (establishing procedures for post-appeal relief).
He may then appeal the trial court’s decision to the state appellate courts as necessary.
Petitioner’s unexhausted claims should first be addressed to, and considered by, the Michigan
courts.
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. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005). Stay and abeyance is
available only in “limited circumstances” such as when the one-year statute of limitations
applicable to federal habeas actions poses a concern, and when the petitioner demonstrates “good
cause” for the failure to exhaust state court remedies before proceeding in federal court, the
unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless,” and the petitioner has not engaged in
intentionally dilatory tactics. Id. at 277.
However, even where 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.” Id. at 278. Generally, courts provide petitioners 30
days to file a motion in state court after the federal habeas proceeding is stayed. 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) and imposing 30-day time limits on the petitioner’s trip to state

3

court and back). Upon exhaustion of the claims in state court, petitioners also have 30 days to
reopen their federal habeas case. Id.
Here, Petitioner has demonstrated a need for a stay. Petitioner seeks to pursue new
claims which have not been presented to the state courts, but the one-year statute of limitations,
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), poses a concern, if the Court were to dismiss the petition to allow for
further exhaustion of state remedies, because Petitioner appears to have filed his petition about
one month before the expiration of the one-year period. See Pet. at 2. Petitioner seeks to present
new issues concerning the effectiveness of his trial counsel, which may provide good cause. The
Court also finds that the unexhausted claims do not appear to be plainly meritless and there is no
evidence of intentional delay. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277.
Accordingly, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion to stay the proceedings and hold the
habeas petition in abeyance. These proceedings are stayed. The stay is conditioned on Petitioner
presenting the unexhausted claims to the state courts within 30 days of the filing date of this
order by filing a motion for relief from judgment with the trial court. See Palmer, 276 F.3d at
781. The stay is further conditioned on Petitioner’s return to this Court with a motion to reopen
and amend the petition, using the same caption and case number, within 30 days of fully
exhausting state remedies. Id. Should Petitioner fail to comply with these conditions, the case
may be dismissed. Lastly, this case is closed for administrative purposes pending compliance
with these conditions. Nothing in this order or in the related docket entry shall be considered a
dismissal or disposition of this matter. Sitto v. Bock, 207 F. Supp. 2d 668, 677 (E.D. Mich.
2002).

4

SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 7, 2014
Flint, Michigan

s/Mark A. Goldsmith
MARK A. GOLDSMITH
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 July 7, 2014.
s/Deborah J. Goltz
DEBORAH J. GOLTZ
Case Manager

5