Opinion
Case No. 00-71389
January 2, 2001
I. Introduction
Petitioner Irvin Williams, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Ryan Correctional Facility in Detroit, Michigan, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. Petitioner has filed a motion requesting that this Court hold his petition in abeyance or, in the alternative, dismiss his petition without prejudice so that he may present unexhausted newly discovered issues and facts in state court. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Petitioner's request to hold the petition in abeyance and grants his request to dismiss the petition without prejudice.
II. Analysis
Petitioner requests that the Court hold his petition in abeyance while he returns to state court to present newly discovered, unexhausted claims. In the alternative, Petitioner asks the . . . Court to dismiss his petition without prejudice to allow him to return to state court.
A Michigan prisoner challenging his confinement by way of a habeas corpus petition in this Court must first exhaust all available remedies in the courts of the state wherein he was convicted, Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991); Wong v. Money, 142 F.3d 313, 322 (6th Cir. 1998). "Ordinarily, the state courts must have had the opportunity to pass on defendant's claims of constitutional violations." Prather v. Rees, 822 F.2d 1418 (6th Cir. 1987). If a petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, it must be dismissed so that the petitioner can exhaust all claims before seeking federal habeas relief.Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). The petitioner bears the burden of showing that state court remedies have been exhausted. Prather, 822 F.2d at 1420, n. 3.
In the instant case, Petitioner states that certain, unspecified claims are unexhausted and seeks an opportunity to return to state court so that he may exhaust them. It is the practice of this Court to dismiss without prejudice habeas petitions that contain unexhausted claims, rather than to retain jurisdiction over cases that ultimately may not be pursued. This provides state courts with the first opportunity to correct constitutional errors. The United States Supreme Court has noted that there is a "strong presumption" in favor of requiring prisoners to pursue available state remedies. Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 131 (1987). Therefore, the Court dismisses the petition without prejudice.
III. Conclusion
Given these circumstances, the Court finds it unnecessary to hold the habeas petition in abeyance pending Petitioner's exhaustion of his claims in state court.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. It is denied in that the Court will not hold the petition for habeas corpus in abeyance. It is GRANTED in that IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE so that Petitioner may exhaust his state court remedies.