INGRAM v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM ORDER that Petitioners Motion for a Stay of this action is granted; ORDERED that Petitioner shall return to this Court by filing a request to reopen this action within 30 days after exhaustion of his state law claim; ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively terminate this action for case management purposes. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 3/16/2018. (rtm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
___________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
___________________________________:
SELLERS INGRAM III,

Civ. No. 17-10740 (NLH)
MEMORANDUM ORDER

It appearing that:
1.

Petitioner Sellers Ingram III (“Petitioner”), a

prisoner currently confined at New Jersey State Prison in
Trenton, New Jersey, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
2.

ECF No. 1.

Petitioner also filed a Motion to Stay this matter so

he can exhaust his claim related to ineffective assistance of
counsel.
3.

ECF No. 1-2.
Petitioner has raised the issue of ineffective

assistance of counsel in a second petition for post-conviction
relief (“PCR”).

Specifically, Petitioner argues that his PCR

counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that his trial
counsel was ineffective, because his trial counsel failed to
present a favorable plea deal to Petitioner pre-trial.

This

second petition is still pending before the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Atlantic County Law Division.

See ECF No. 1, Pet.

at 6.
4.

Respondents do not oppose Petitioner’s request for a

stay, stating that “[h]aving reviewed petitioner’s filings, the
State does not oppose petitioner’s request for a stay and
abeyance of his federal habeas action until the state court
proceedings on his post-conviction relief petition are
exhausted.”
5.

ECF No. 6 at 2.

In light of the presently pending second PCR petition,

the lack of delay by Petitioner in seeking relief, and the lack
of opposition by Respondent, the Court finds that a stay is
appropriate in this matter while Petitioner exhausts the issue
related to ineffective assistance of counsel.

See Rhines v.

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277–78 (2005) (a stay is “appropriate when
the district court determines that there was good cause for the
petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court”
and his unexhausted claim is not plainly meritless).
IT IS, therefore, on this

16th

day of

March

, 2018,

ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for a Stay of this action,
ECF No. 1-2, is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner shall return to this Court by
filing a request to reopen this action within 30 days after
exhaustion of his state law claim; and it is further
2

ORDERED that, if Petitioner should fail to comply with the
deadline set forth in this Order, this Court may vacate this
Order nunc pro tunc and dismiss all unexhausted claims without
further notice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of
this Order upon Petitioner by regular mail; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively
terminate this action for case management purposes.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

3