ADAMS v. TICE et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM ORDER: IT IS ORDERED, this 4th day of June 2021, that Petitioner's Motion for a Temporary Stay, ECF No. 51 , shall be, and hereby is, DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before June 25, 2021, Petitioner may submit a renewed motion to stay that complies with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) and the principles discussed herein. In the event Petitioner decides to file a renewed motion for a temporary stay, he shall append to his motion a proposed amended §2254 petition that includes all claims for relief, both exhausted and unexhausted. Respondents may file a response to any renewed motion on or before July 9, 2021. Signed by Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 6/4/21. (esa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYWAN ADAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC TICE, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:17-cv-239

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Petitioner Tywan Adams, an inmate at SCI-Greene, is proceeding pro se on a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Pending before the Court is Adams’
motion for a temporary stay of these habeas proceedings, the purpose of which is to allow
Adams to exhaust in state court “newly discovered Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendment claims.” ECF No. 51, ¶2. Adams apparently believes that these “newly
discovered” claims are justified in light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s July 21, 2020
ruling in Commonwealth v. McClelland, 233 A.3d 717, 721 (Pa. 2020) (holding that hearsay
evidence alone was insufficient to establish a prima facie case at the preliminary hearing stage of
criminal proceedings).
By way of background, the Court notes that Adams’ original §2254 petition was lodged
on August 31, 2017 and filed of record on October 17, 2017. ECF Nos. 1 and 4. Adams filed an
amended petition on March 19, 2018, ECF No. 26, and a second amended petition -- his
operative petition -- on November 25, 2019. ECF No. 38. The District Attorney of Erie County
filed an answer on behalf of all Respondents on July 17, 2020. ECF No. 44. Adams then filed a

1

brief in opposition to Respondents’ answer on August 21, 2020, making his claims ripe for
adjudication. ECF No. 46.
On May 3, 2021, Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo filed a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended that this Court deny Adams’ operative §2254
petition and deny a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 47. As matters presently stand, Adams’
objections to the Report and Recommendation are due by July 18, 2021.
Adams filed his motion for a temporary stay of these proceedings on May 25, 2021. ECF
No. 51. Although he alludes to four “newly discovered” claims, he provides no elaboration in
his motion about the nature of the claims.
Of course, a petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must
“exhaust[ ] the remedies available in the courts of the State” before applying for habeas relief.
See 28 U.S.C. 2254(b)(1)(A). In “limited circumstances,” a court may grant a petitioner a
protective stay to allow him to return to state court and exhaust any unexhausted claims without
running afoul of the one-year statute of limitations to file a habeas petition. See Rhines v. Weber,
544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005); see also Crews v. Horn, 360 F.3d 146, 151 (3d Cir. 2004). The
United States Supreme Court has held that a stay is “only appropriate” where the district court
determines that the petitioner “had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims
are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally
dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. A petitioner bears the burden of showing
that he is entitled to a stay. See Urcinoli v. Cathel, 546 F.3d 269, 275, n.8 (3d Cir. 2008).
As noted, Adams has not articulated the precise nature of the constitutional claims he is
seeking to exhaust. Instead, his motion merely cites to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
decision in McClelland without further elaboration. As a result, the Court is unable to determine

2

what specific claims Adams is seeking to exhaust, whether those claims are potentially
meritorious, and whether Adams has good cause for his failure to exhaust those claims
previously. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277–78. Accordingly, the Court will deny Adams’ motion
without prejudice to his filing of a renewed motion for a stay within thirty days that complies
with the principles articulated in Rhines. The motion for a stay must clearly identify each
unexhausted claim and show the following: (1) that the unexhausted claims are potentially
meritorious; (2) that Adams has good cause for failing to exhaust; and (3) that Adams has not
engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. To the extent the operative habeas petition
does not include all of the claims that Adams seeks to raise in these proceedings, he must append
to his motion a proposed amended §2254 petition that includes all claims for relief, both
exhausted and unexhausted.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, this 4th day of June 2021, that Petitioner’s Motion for a
Temporary Stay, ECF No. 51, shall be, and hereby is, DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before June 25, 2021, Petitioner may submit a
renewed motion to stay that complies with Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) and the
principles discussed herein. In the event Petitioner decides to file a renewed motion for a
temporary stay, he shall append to his motion a proposed amended §2254 petition that includes
all claims for relief, both exhausted and unexhausted. Respondents may file a response to any
renewed motion on or before July 9, 2021.

________________________________
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States District Judge

3