The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN BROWN,
Petitioner, Case No. 24-cv-11584
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
v.
RANDEE REWERTS,
Respondent.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS AND HOLD HABEAS PETITION
IN ABEYANCE (ECF No. 5) AND (2) STAYING CASE PENDING
EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES
Petitioner John Brown is a state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections. On June 18, 2024, Brown filed a pro se petition for a
writ of habeas corpus in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (See Pet., ECF No.
1.) Brown has also filed a motion to hold the petition in abeyance so that he can
return to the state courts to present an additional claim that has not been exhausted
and that is not included in his current habeas petition. (See Mot., ECF No. 5.) More
specifically, Brown says that he has newly discovered evidence that the prosecutor
withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963). (See id.)
A state prisoner who seeks federal habeas relief must first exhaust his
available state court remedies before raising a claim in federal court. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2254(b) and (c). See also Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275-78 (1971); Walker
v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 315 (2011). However, the dismissal of a pending habeas
petition while a petitioner pursues state remedies for unexhausted claims could result
in the subsequent petition being barred by the one-year statute of limitations for
habeas petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). To avoid that time-bar, a federal court
may opt to stay a federal habeas petition and hold further proceedings in abeyance
pending resolution of state court post-conviction proceedings. See Rhines v. Weber,
544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). After the petitioner exhausts his state remedies, the
federal court may lift its stay and allow the petitioner to proceed in federal court. See
id. at 275-76.
The Court concludes that Brown is entitled to such a stay here. A stay is
warranted because it will enable Brown to exhaust his state-court remedies for all of
his claims without fear of violating the rule on second or successive petitions or the
statute of limitations.
The Court notes that Brown has already filed a post-conviction motion for
relief from judgment in state court. Under Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(1), a
criminal defendant in Michigan can typically file only one motion for relief from
judgment with regard to a criminal conviction. See Banks v. Jackson, 149 F. App’x
414, 418 (6th Cir. 2005). However, Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(2) provides that
a defendant may file a second or subsequent motion based on a retroactive change
in law that occurred after the first motion for relief from judgment or based on a
claim of new evidence that was not discovered before the first such motion. See id.
Here, Brown alleges that his claim is based on newly discovered evidence. “Because
it is at least debatable whether the Michigan courts would entertain this claim on a
second or successive motion for state postconviction relief,” id., it is not clear that
Brown’s state-court motion would be procedurally barred. The Court will therefore
grant a stay of proceedings in this case so that Brown may return to state court and
attempt to exhaust his claim in a second motion for relief from judgment. See id. at
419-20.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that Brown’s motion to hold the petition in abeyance while he pursues state remedies
(ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. This stay is conditioned upon Brown presenting his
unexhausted claim to the state courts by filing a motion for relief from judgment in
state trial court by no later than September 30, 2024. See Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d
679, 683 (6th Cir. 2002) (discussing similar procedure). If that court denies Brown’s
motion, he must seek timely review in the Michigan Court of Appeals and the
Michigan Supreme Court in the manner provided under Michigan law. See id.
The stay is further conditioned on Brown’s return to this Court, with a motion
to reinstate and amend the petition, using the same caption and case number included
at the top of this order, within 90 days of fully exhausting his state court remedies.
If Brown fails to comply with any of the conditions described in this order, the Court
will rule only on his currently exhausted claims.1 See Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d
409, 411 (6th Cir. 2014). Nothing in this order or the related docket entry shall be
construed as an adjudication of any of Brown’s claims. See Sitto v. Bock, 207
F.Supp.2d 668, 677 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 24, 2024
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on July 24, 2024, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
(313) 234-5126
1 The Court notes that Brown’s habeas petition is deficient because he failed to pay
the $5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See
Gravitt v. Tyszkiewicz, 14 F. App’x 348, 349 (6th Cir. 2001). When Brown returns
to this Court after exhausting his claim in the state courts, he will be required to
either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis
at that time.