Opinion
Case No. 3:05-cv-326.
April 1, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO HOLD PETITION IN ABEYANCE
This case is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Hold this Habeas Corpus Action in Abeyance pending final exhaustion of the constitutional claims raised in Petitioner's post-conviction petition in the state courts (Doc. No. 13). Respondent has now consented to that Motion (Doc. No. 19).
The United States Supreme Court recently found that district courts have authority to grant stays in habeas corpus cases to permit exhaustion of state court remedies in consideration of the AEDPA's preference for state court initial resolution of claims. It cautioned, however,
[S]tay and abeyance should be available only in limited circumstances. Because granting a stay effectively excuses a petitioner's failure to present his claims first to the state courts, stay and abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court. Moreover, even if a petitioner had good cause for that failure, the district court would abuse its discretion if it were to grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) ("An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the State"). . . .
On the other hand, it likely would be an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition if 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 v. Weber, 541 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 161 L. Ed. 2d 440 (2005). It also directed district courts to place reasonable time limits on the petitioner's trip to state court and back. The Supreme Court thus endorsed the approach this Court had been following under Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F. 3rd 377 (6th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner has already filed his petition in state court and has appealed from the denial of relief by the trial court. Because the Respondent has consented to the stay, there is no need for this Court to decide at this juncture whether there was good cause for Petitioner to delay in presenting his claims to the state courts or whether the unexhausted claims are "plainly meritless." These proceedings are therefore stayed pending the outcome of Petitioner's present appeal. Petitioner shall promptly notify this Court of any decisions made in the state court system.
The Court offers the Petitioner the following caution, however. Petitioner asked for a stay because of his understanding that mixed petitions (which contain both exhausted and unexhausted claims) are subject to mandatory dismissal. While that was true before the AEDPA was enacted, it is no longer true; that is precisely why the Supreme Court has approved of the stay procedure. The Court assumes from the way Petitioner has phrased his request that the claims he is presently exhausting in the state court are not pleaded in his current Petition. If that is so and Petitioner plans to add them to this case when he has exhausted his available state remedies, he needs to pay careful attention to the statute of limitations. While Respondent has conceded that Petitioner's initial filing was timely, the pendency of a petition does not stop the running of the statute of limitations. . Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 121 S. Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001). Moreover, amendments to habeas petitions which raise "new" claims do not relate back to the original date of filing; such amendments may well be barred by the statute of limitations. Mayle v. Felix, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 2562; 162 L. Ed. 2d 582 (2005).