Dixon v. Lee

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying without prejudice petitioner's 9 motion to hold his 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in abeyance. Petitioner is free to file another motion for a stay and abeyance, provided he can demonstrate "good ca use" for his failure to raise previously the claims he is now planning to exhaust in State court. Any such motion shall explain the claims to be raised in his C.P.L. 440.10 motion with sufficient particularity to enable this Court to make an independent determination that his claims are not "plainly meritless." Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 3/27/2015. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner. (Barrett, C)

ED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------- -----x
WILLIAM DIXON,

04 CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S DISTRICT COURT EON.

* MAR 30 2015 *•
!BROOKLYN OFFICE

Petitioner,
—against—

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WARDEN WILLIAM LEE,

14-CV-7162 (SLT)
Respondent.

---------------------------------------

x
-

TOWNES, United States District Judge:
In a one-page submission received by the Court and docketed on March 23, 2015 3
petitioner William Dixon moves to hold the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
abeyance. In that submission, petitioner states only that he intends to "file a C.P.L. 440.10
motion on issues, on and off the record." He does not explain what issues he seeks to exhaust in
state court, or explain why those issues could not have been exhausted sooner.
As recently as March 2005, stays of the sort that Petitioner seeks were routinely granted
in this Circuit pursuant to Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F.3d 374, 481 (2d Cir. 2001). However, on
March 30, 2005, the United States Supreme Court imposed new restrictions with respect to the
use of the "stay and abeyance" procedure. In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528,
161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), the Supreme Court held that, while district courts have discretion to
grant stays, "stay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances." Id. at 277.
Specifically, the Supreme Court held that a stay should be granted only if a petitioner can show
"good cause" for failing to exhaust all available State remedies earlier and, even then, only if the
unexhausted claims are not "plainly meritless." Id.

In light of Rhines, the Court cannot grant a stay and hold these proceedings in abeyance
on the strength of petitioner's submission. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.
If petitioner elects to file another motion, that motion must demonstrate "good cause" for his
failure to raise previously the claims he is now planning to exhaust in State court and explain the
claims to be raised in his C.P.L. 440.10 motion with sufficient particularity to enable this Court
to make an independent determination that his claims are not "plainly meritless."
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner's motion to hold his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in abeyance is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is free to file another motion
for a stay and abeyance, provided he can demonstrate "good cause" for his failure to raise
previously the claims he is now planning to exhaust in State court. Any such motion shall
explain the claims to be raised in his C.P.L. 440.10 motion with sufficient particularity to enable
this Court to make an independent determination that his claims are not "plainly meritless."
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sandra L. Townes
S
de(SANDRA L. TOWNEr 4z
United States District Judge
Dated: March;17, 2015
Brooklyn, New York

2