BELL v. NOGAN et al

Filing 17

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 2/24/2016. (dmr)(n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
LAWRENCE BELL,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
Civ. No. 15-5497 (NLH)
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
PATRICK NOGAN, et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
___________________________________:
APPEARANCES:
Lawrence Bell, # 115854/858703B
East Jersey State Prison
Lock Bag R
Rahway, NJ 07065
Petitioner, Pro se
Robin A. Hamett, Esq.
Assistant Prosecutor
Camden County Prosecutor’s Office
25 N. Fifth Street
Camden, NJ 08102
Counsel for Respondents
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Lawrence Bell, a prisoner confined at the East
Jersey State Prison in Rahway, New Jersey, filed this writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1992 New
Jersey state court conviction. (ECF No. 1).

On or about

November 18, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Stay of the
habeas proceeding so that he could “proceed back to State court
to pursue a motion to correct an illegal sentence[.]” (Mot. 1,
ECF No. 9).

Respondents do not object to Petitioner’s request

1

for a stay.

For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s

Motion for a Stay will be DENIED.
I.

MOTION FOR STAY

A. Standard
A petitioner seeking federal habeas review must exhaust
state court remedies for all grounds for relief asserted in a
habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); Crews v. Horn, 360
F.3d 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2004).

It is therefore proper and

routine for district courts to dismiss habeas petitions
containing both unexhausted and exhausted claims (so-called
“mixed petitions”) so as to allow the State courts the first
opportunity to address the petitioner's constitutional claims.
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379
(1982).
Despite this “total exhaustion” rule, the Third Circuit has
recognized that, in some circumstances, dismissing a “mixed
petition” may time-bar a petitioner from federal court under the
one-year statute of limitations for § 2254 claims imposed by the
Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28
U.S.C. § 3344(d). See Crews, 360 F.3d at 151 (“AEDPA's
limitations period may act to deprive a petitioner of a federal
forum if dismissal of the habeas petition is required”) (citing
Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374, 379 (2d Cir. 2001)).
Accordingly, the Third Circuit has held that “[s]taying a habeas
2

petition pending exhaustion of state remedies is a permissible
and effective way to avoid barring from federal court a
petitioner who timely files a mixed petition.” See Crews, 360
F.3d at 151.
The Supreme Court likewise has acknowledged there could be
circumstances where dismissal of a mixed petition for exhaustion
would result in the one-year habeas statute of limitations
expiring before the petitioner was able to return to federal
court. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 272–73 (2005).

The

Court held that, in limited circumstances, district courts have
discretion to hold a habeas proceeding in stay and abeyance
while the petitioner exhausts his unexhausted claims in state
court. Id. at 277.

A stay and abeyance is available only when

the petitioner had good cause for failing to exhaust his claims;
and only if the claims have potential merit. Id. at 277–78.
Though “[f]ew courts have provided guidance as to what
constitutes ‘good cause’ for failing to exhaust a claim in state
court within the meaning of Rhines,” the Third Circuit
emphasizes “the need to be mindful of Justice Stevens's
concurrence in Rhines, which cautions that ... [the requirement]
is not intended to impose the sort of strict and inflexible
requirement that would ‘trap the unwary pro se prisoner[.]’”
Locust v. Ricci, No. 08–2713, 2010 WL 1463190, at *10 (D.N.J.

3

Apr. 12, 2010) (quoting Ellison v. Rogers, 484 F.3d 658, 662 (3d
Cir. 2007) (citations omitted)).
1. Analysis
As set forth above, a stay and abeyance is only appropriate
when a petitioner demonstrates good cause for failing to
exhaust, and only if the unexhausted claims are not plainly
meritless. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277–78.
Here, Petitioner has not provided any information regarding
the claims he wishes to pursue in state court.

The two grounds

for relief which Petitioner asserts in his Petition appear to
have been presented to the state courts — either in Petitioner’s
motion for a new trial or in his second application for PostConviction Relief. (Pet. 20-23, ECF No. 1).

Therefore, at this

time the Court does not construe the instant Petition as a
“mixed” petition, and the two claims of the Petition are not
those which Petitioner presently wishes to exhaust in state
court.
The substance of Petitioner’s motion for a stay is limited
to a single paragraph in which he seeks “an Order granting
petitioner permission to proceed back to State court to pursue a
motion to correct an illegal sentence and to hold his § 2254
petition in abeyance.” (Mot. 1, ECF No. 9).

Without any

information as to what claims he seeks to pursue in state court,
this Court is unable to determine that the unexhausted claims
4

are potentially meritorious. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277–78.
Additionally, because he provides no explanation as to and why
he did not, or could not, previously raise these claims in state
court, Petitioner has not demonstrated “good cause” for failing
to exhaust these unknown claims. Id.

The fact that Respondents

do not object to Petitioner’s request for a stay does not change
this Court’s analysis under Rhines.
Therefore, a stay and abeyance is inappropriate and
Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 9) will be DENIED.

This

denial is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a future motion
for stay and abeyance which addresses the Rhines factors.
II.

RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER

Respondents have received several extensions of time in
which to file their Answer.

Presently, their Answer is past due

and a third extension request is pending. (ECF No. 15).

The

Court will grant Respondents until March 21, 2016 to file their
Answer.

Absent exceptional circumstances, no further extensions

will be given.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (ECF
No. 9) is DENIED without prejudice.

5

Respondents shall file a

full and complete Answer to the Petition no later than March 21,
2016.
An appropriate Order will be entered.

___s/ Noel L. Hillman_____
NOEL L. HILLMAN
United States District Judge
Dated: February 24, 2016
At Camden, New Jersey

6