Mayes v. Brewer
OPINION and ORDER Granting 3 MOTION to Stay 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Administratively Closing Case. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
JEQUIS TINA-DOMINIQUE MAYES,
Case No. 4:18-cv-10714
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Dkt. 3)
AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE
Jequis Tina-Dominique Mayes, (“Petitioner”), filed a pro se petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging her state court conviction
of four counts of operating a motor vehicle causing death and four counts of
A state prisoner who seeks federal habeas relief must first exhaust her
available state court remedies before raising a claim in federal court. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b) and (c). See Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275-78 (1971). Petitioner
asserts that she presented four claims on direct appeal in the Michigan Court of
Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court, challenging the validity of her conviction
and sentence. Petitioner states that she has additional constitutional claims related to
the effective assistance of counsel for failing to preserve her other claims at trial.
Petitioner asserts that she wishes to present her new claims to the state trial court in
a motion for relief from judgment. She requests that the Court stay the case while
she continues to pursue state post-conviction review with respect to these new
claims. To avoid problems with the one year statute of limitations contained in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), a federal court may opt to stay a federal habeas petition and
hold further proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of state court postconviction proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005).
The Court holds the petition in abeyance. Petitioner must exhaust her new
claims in state court by pursing her motion for relief from judgment and any appeal
following its disposition to the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme
Court. See e.g. Wagner v. Smith, 581 F. 3d 410, 419 (6th Cir. 2009). Further, she
must ask this Court to lift the stay within sixty days of exhausting her state court
remedies. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of the stay could result in the
dismissal of the habeas petition. Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 411 (6th Cir.
It is ORDERED that the motion to stay is GRANTED and the petition for
writ of habeas corpus shall be stayed and held in abeyance pending Petitioner’s state
post-conviction review proceeding.
To avoid administrative difficulties, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court
to 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
Sitto v. Bock, 207 F. Supp. 2d 668, 677 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
It is further ORDERED that upon receipt of a motion to reinstate the habeas
petition following exhaustion of state remedies, the Court may order the Clerk to
reopen this case for statistical purposes.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 6, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on March 6, 2018, by electronic means and/or
s/Holly A. Monda
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?