MCGEE v. JOHNSON et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Petitioner's request to stay the habeas petition and hold it in abeyance is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this Order, Petitioner may submit a renewed request to stay his petition and hold it in abeyance pending exhaustion of his state court remedies, etc. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 7/19/17. (js)

Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DANA L. McGEE, Petitioner, v. STEVEN JOHNSON et al., Respondents. This matter comes : : : : : : : : : : : Civ. Action No. 17-2746 (RMB) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER before the Court upon Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Pet., ECF No. 1), and his letter abeyance. (Letter, ECF No. 5.) request for a stay and Petitioner seeks a stay and abeyance of his habeas petition while he appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion for DNA testing. 5.) (Letter, ECF No. Respondents’ answer to the petition is due on July 31, 2017, and Respondents have not responded to Petitioner’s request for a stay. (Order, ECF No. 7.) A district court cannot consider a mixed habeas petition, a petition that contains exhausted and unexhausted claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982) (holding a district court must dismiss a § 2254 habeas petition). Rather than dismissing a mixed petition, a district court has discretion to stay and hold the petition in abeyance while the petitioner returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005). claims. Before granting a stay and abeyance, a district court must determine that the petitioner had good cause for failing to exhaust his claims in state court prior to bringing his habeas petition, and that his unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless. According to the petition, Id. at 277. Petitioner’s became final on January 17, 2011. direct (Pet., ¶18.) appeal Three days later, Petitioner filed his first petition for post-conviction relief. (Id.) The denial of Petitioner’s first PCR petition became final on September 7, 2016, after the Appellate Division affirmed the PCR Court, and the New Jersey Supreme Court denied review. 3, 2017. when (Id.) The present habeas petition was filed on April (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner filed his The petition does not indicate second post-conviction motion, although it does indicate that Petitioner’s appeal from denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing is pending before the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. (Pet., ¶15.) For this Court to grant a request to stay and hold in abeyance a § 2254 petition, the petitioner must establish good cause for failing to exhaust his claims in state court prior to bringing his habeas petition, and that his unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. at 277. 2 The record before this Court does not permit such a finding. Petitioner will be permitted to submit a second request to stay the petition, wherein he shall provide information on the cause for his failure to exhaust before filing the habeas petition, and a brief summary of the merits of his pending PCR claim. IT IS therefore on this 19th day of July 2017, ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to stay the habeas petition and hold it in abeyance is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this Order, Petitioner may submit a renewed request to stay his petition and hold it in abeyance pending exhaustion of his state court remedies; and it is further ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the filing of Petitioner’s renewed request for a stay, Respondent may, in lieu of its Answer, file a response to Petitioner’s renewed request to stay the petition and hold it in abeyance; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner by regular U.S. mail. s/Renée Marie Bumb RENÉE MARIE BUMB United States District Judge 3

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?