Clark v. Nagy

• Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
• Decided: March 25, 2024
• Docket: 4:21-cv-11938
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAY SCOTT CLARK,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:21-cv-11938 Honorable F. Kay Behm

NOAH NAGY,

Respondent. _________________________________/

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE MOTION TO STAY THE HABEAS CASE (ECF No. 12)

This is a pro se habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jay Scott Clark’s motion to stay the proceedings and to hold his habeas petition in abeyance so that he can return to the state court to exhaust additional constitutional claims. The Respondent has already filed an answer to the current habeas petition and the state court record. A federal district court has discretion to stay a mixed habeas petition, containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims, to allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state courts and then return to federal court on a perfected petition. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005). Stay and abeyance is available only in “limited circumstances” such as when the one-year statute of limitations poses a concern, and when the petitioner demonstrates “good cause” for the failure to exhaust state remedies before proceeding in federal court, the

petitioner has not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics, and the unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless.” Id. at 277. In this case, Petitioner offers no details about the need for a stay, including

his delay in investigating/discovering additional evidence or claims, or the substance of any new evidence or claims. He thus fails to sufficiently allege or establish that a stay and abeyance is warranted under the Rhines factors. Moreover, the Court concludes dismissal of the case is inappropriate at this stage

given the potential issues that Petitioner could face under the one-year statute of limitations when he returns to this Court after exhausting his remedies. Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Petitioner’s motion to

stay.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/F. Kay Behm F. KAY BEHM Dated: March 25, 2024 United States District Judge