Opinion
Case No. 1:12-cv-1198
11-29-2012
STEVEN MONTEZ, Petitioner, v. WILLIE SMITH, Respondent.
Honorable Janet T. Neff
OPINION
This is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." Rule 4, RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the duty to "screen out" petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his available state-court remedies as to all claims raised in the petition. Because Petitioner has fewer than 60 days remaining in the limitations period for filing a habeas petition, the Court will not dismiss the action at this time, pending Petitioner's compliance with the further directions of this Court set forth in this opinion and attached order.
Discussion
I. Factual allegations
Petitioner Willie Smith presently is incarcerated at the Carson City Correctional Facility. Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I), MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.520b, and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC II), MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.520c. On July 2, 2009, the Kent County Circuit Court sentenced him to two terms of 17 years and 6 months to 50 years for the CSC I offenses and one term of 6 to 15 years on the CSC II offense.
Petitioner appealed his convictions to the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising three grounds: (1) improper admission of testimonial evidence of an erotic video and photographs; (2) error in scoring Offense Variable (OV) 9; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing for failing to object to the scoring of OV 9. On February 1, 2011, the court of appeals affirmed his convictions but remanded the case for resentencing. Petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, raising the same three claims. The supreme court denied leave to appeal on July 25, 2011.
Petitioner, appearing through counsel, filed the instant habeas proceeding in the Eastern District of Michigan on October 23, 2012. In his petition, Petitioner represents that, through an apparent administrative error, he was never resentenced as ordered by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Counsel has contemporaneously filed a motion in the Kent County Circuit Court seeking resentencing. In addition, he states that he intends to file a motion for relief from judgment under MICH. CT. R. 6.502, raising at least one unspecified claim. He seeks a stay of these proceedings allowing him 90 days in which to obtain resentencing and to file his motion for relief from judgment and another 90 days to re-file his habeas petition after the conclusion of state-court review.
In an order issued October 30, 2012, the Eastern District of Michigan transferred the action to this Court on venue grounds.
II. Failure to exhaust available state-court remedies
Before the Court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner, the prisoner must exhaust remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). Exhaustion requires a petitioner to "fairly present" federal claims so that state courts have a "fair opportunity" to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon a petitioner's constitutional claim. See O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 842; Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-77 (1971), cited in Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995), and Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 (1982). To fulfill the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must have fairly presented his federal claims to all levels of the state appellate system, including the state's highest court. Duncan, 513 U.S. at 365-66; Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 414 (6th Cir. 2009); Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990). "[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process." O'Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. The district court can and must raise the exhaustion issue sua sponte, when it clearly appears that habeas claims have not been presented to the state courts. See Prather v. Rees, 822 F.2d 1418, 1422 (6th Cir. 1987); Allen, 424 F.2d at 138-39.
Petitioner bears the burden of showing exhaustion. See Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). Petitioner alleges that he exhausted his first three claims by presenting them to both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court. He acknowledges that he has not exhausted any of the new claims that he intends to include in his habeas corpus petition..
An applicant has not exhausted available state remedies if he has the right under state law to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). Petitioner has at least one available procedure by which to raise the unexhausted issues he has presented in this application. He may file a motion for relief from judgment under MICH. CT. R. 6.500 et. seq. Under Michigan law, one such motion may be filed after August 1, 1995. MICH. CT. R. 6.502(G)(1). Petitioner has not yet filed his one allotted motion. Therefore, the Court concurs with Petitioner's assertion that he has at least one available state remedy.
Because Petitioner has some claims that are exhausted and some that are not, his petition is "mixed." Under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 22 (1982), district courts are directed to dismiss mixed petitions without prejudice in order to allow petitioners to return to state court to exhaust remedies. However, since the habeas statute was amended to impose a one-year statute of limitations on habeas claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), dismissal without prejudice often effectively precludes future federal habeas review. This is particularly true after the Supreme Court ruled in Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001), that the limitations period is not tolled during the pendency of a federal habeas petition. As a result, the Sixth Circuit adopted a stay-and-abeyance procedure to be applied to mixed petitions. See Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). In Palmer, the Sixth Circuit held that when the dismissal of a mixed petition could jeopardize the timeliness of a subsequent petition, the district court should dismiss only the unexhausted claims and stay further proceedings on the remaining portion until the petitioner has exhausted his claims in the state court. Id.; see also Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) (adopting stay-and-abeyance procedure); Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 652 n.1 (6th Cir. 2002).
Petitioner's application is subject to the one-year statute of limitations provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Under § 2244(d)(1)(A), the one-year limitation period runs from "the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review." Petitioner appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. The Michigan Supreme Court denied his application on July 25, 2011. Petitioner did not petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, though the ninety-day period in which he could have sought review in the United States Supreme Court is counted under § 2244(d)(1)(A). See Bronaugh v. Ohio, 235 F.3d 280, 283 (6th Cir. 2000). The ninety-day period expired on Monday, October 24, 2011. Accordingly, Petitioner had one year, until October 24, 2012, in which to file his habeas petition. Petitioner filed the instant petition in the Eastern District of Michigan on October 23, 2012, one day before expiration of the limitations period.
The Palmer Court has indicated that thirty days is a reasonable amount of time for a petitioner to file a motion for post-conviction relief in state court, and another thirty days is a reasonable amount of time for a petitioner to return to federal court after he has exhausted his state-court remedies. Palmer, 276 F.3d at 721. See also Griffin, 308 F.3d at 653 (holding that sixty days amounts to mandatory period of equitable tolling under Palmer). In the instant case, Petitioner has less than sixty days remaining before the statute of limitations expires. Petitioner therefore would not have the necessary 30 days to file a motion for post-conviction relief or the additional 30 days to return to this court before expiration of the statute of limitations. As a result, were the Court to dismiss the petition without prejudice for lack of exhaustion, the dismissal could jeopardize the timeliness of any subsequent petition. Palmer, 276 F.3d at 781.
The running of the statute of limitations is tolled while "a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
--------
The Supreme Court has held, however, that the type of stay-and-abeyance procedure set forth in Palmer should be available only in limited circumstances because over-expansive use of the procedure would thwart the AEDPA's goals of achieving finality and encouraging petitioners to first exhaust all of their claims in the state courts. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277. In its discretion, a district court contemplating stay and abeyance should stay the mixed petition pending prompt exhaustion of state remedies if there is "good cause" for the petitioner's failure to exhaust, if the petitioner's unexhausted claims are not "plainly meritless" and if there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in "intentionally dilatory litigation tactics." Id. at 278. Moreover, under Rhines, if the district court determines that a stay is inappropriate, it must allow the petitioner the opportunity to delete the unexhausted claims from his petition, especially in circumstances in which dismissal of the entire petition without prejudice would "unreasonably impair the petitioner's right to obtain federal relief." Id.
Although Petitioner has filed a motion to stay and has identified the appropriate review standard for this Court in considering whether to grant a stay, he has failed to identify the nature of his unexhausted claims. As a result, the Court is unable to make any determination concerning the merit of the unexhausted claims. In addition, while Petitioner has indicated that the state court failed to resentence Petitioner appropriately, he has not explained why he did not seek resentencing or file a motion for relief from judgment before his habeas limitations period was nearly expired. Moreover, Petitioner seeks a total of 180 days to complete his review of the unexhausted claims in the state courts - three times the length of time generally authorized under Palmer, 276 F.3d at 721. Yet he has provided no explanation for the lengthy period of stay.
If Petitioner wishes to pursue his unexhausted claims in the state courts, he must show cause within 28 days why he is entitled to a stay of these proceedings. Specifically, Petitioner must show: (1) good cause for his failure to exhaust before filing his habeas petition; (2) that his unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless; and (3) that he has not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. In addition, he must show cause why he is entitled to a period of stay far beyond the time authorized by Palmer, 276 F.3d at 721. If Petitioner fails to meet the Rhines requirements for a stay or otherwise fails to timely comply with the Court's order, the Court will review only his exhausted claims. In the alternative, Petitioner may file an amended petition setting forth only his exhausted claims.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
___________
Janet T. Neff
United States District Judge