Stewart v. Chapman

Filing 8

ORDER (1) Granting Petitioner's Request for a Stay, (2) Holding the Petition in Abeyance, and (3) Administratively Closing Case. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CODY MICHAEL STEWART,
Petitioner,

Case No. 20-cv-12448
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
WILLIS CHAPMAN,
Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
A STAY, (2) HOLDING THE PETITION IN ABEYANCE,
AND (3) ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE
Petitioner Cody Michael Stewart is a state prisoner in the custody of the
Michigan Department of Corrections. On September 7, 2020, Stewart filed a habeas
corpus petition in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Pet., ECF No. 1.)
The petition seeks relief from Stewart’s Jackson County sentence for two counts of
carjacking, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.529a, and one count of malicious destruction
of property, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.337a(1)(a)(i). (See id.) Stewart insists that
the sentencing court (1) relied on inaccurate information and (2) found him guilty of
an unrelated offense in the absence of a conviction. (See id., PageID.4, 7.)

On March 16, 2021, Respondent Willis Chapman filed a response to Stewart’s
petition. (See Answer, ECF No. 5.) Chapman argued that the Court should dismiss
the petition without prejudice because Stewart did not exhaust state remedies for his
two claims. (See id., PageID. 211, 213, 229.) Chapman also argued that Stewart’s
claims failed on the merits. (See id.)
In a reply to that responsive pleading, Stewart conceded that he did not
exhaust his state-court remedies for his two claims. (See Reply, ECF No. 7,
PageID.580.) He also acknowledged that he could not prevail on his second claim,
and he withdrew that claim. (See id.) Finally, Stewart asked the Court to hold his
habeas petition in abeyance while he exhausted his remedies for that claim in the
state courts. (See id., PageID.584.)
“[A] state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief must first ‘exhaus[t] the
remedies available in the courts of the State,’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), thereby
affording those courts ‘the first opportunity to address and correct alleged violations
of [the] prisoner’s federal rights.’” Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 315 (2011)
(quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991)). However, a dismissal of
a pending habeas petition while a petitioner pursues state remedies for an
unexhausted claim could result in the subsequent petition being barred by the oneyear statute of limitations for habeas petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). To avoid
that time-bar, a federal court may opt to stay a federal habeas petition and hold
2

further proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of state court post-conviction
proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). The Court believes
that such a stay is appropriate here while Stewart attempts to exhaust his unexhausted
claim in state court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Stewart’s request to hold his
petition in abeyance while he pursues state remedies for his unexhausted first claim
(ECF No. 7) is GRANTED. Stewart has already filed a motion for relief from
judgment in the state trial court. (See ECF No. 7-1, PageID.590.) If Stewart is
unsuccessful in state court, he must return to this Court and file a motion to reinstate
and amend his habeas petition within 90 days of fully exhausting his state court
remedies. See Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d 679, 683 (6th Cir. 2002) (discussing similar
procedure). If Stewart fails to comply with any of the conditions described in this
order, the Court may dismiss his petition. See Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 411
(6th Cir. 2014) (concluding that the district court’s dismissal of a habeas petition
was appropriate because the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the
district court’s stay).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case
for administrative purposes only. On receipt of Stewart’s motion to reinstate and
amend the petition, the Court will order the Clerk to reopen this case for statistical
purposes. Nothing in this Order or the related docket entry shall be construed as an
3

adjudication of Stewart’s current claim. See Sitto v. Bock, 207 F.Supp.2d 668, 677
(E.D. Mich. 2002) (closing a habeas case containing exhausted and unexhausted
claims to avoid administrative difficulties and stating that “[n]othing in this order or
in the related docket entry shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this
matter”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 27, 2021
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on April 27, 2021, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

4