UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEON CRAWFORD, #691535,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-13499 

v. HONORABLE GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

JEFFREY WOODS,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

HOLD HIS HABEAS PETITION IN ABEYANCE [#3]

AND CLOSING THIS CASE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Michigan prisoner Deon

Crawford (“Petitioner”) was convicted of second-degree murder, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.317,

felonious assault,MICH.COMP.LAWS § 750.82, felon in possession of a firearm,MICH.COMP.LAWS

§ 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MICH. COMP. LAWS §

750.227b, following a jury trial in the Wayne County Circuit Court in 2012. He was sentenced to

25 to 50 years imprisonment on the murder conviction, time served on the felonious assault and

felon in possession convictions, and a consecutive term of five years imprisonment (reduced to two

years imprisonment on appeal) on the felony firearm conviction. In his current petition, he raises

claims concerning the sufficiency and great weight of the evidence, the addition of the felonious

assault charge, and the validity of his felony firearm sentence. The matter is before the Court on

Petitioner’s motion to hold his habeas petition in abeyance and stay the proceedings so that he may

return to the state courts and exhaust additional issues concerning the effectiveness of trial and

2:14-cv-13499-GAD-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 09/22/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 37
appellate counsel. For the reasons stated, the Court grants Petitioner’s motion.

II.

Petitioner’s convictions arise from a shooting that resulted in the death of one man and

injuries to another man. Following his convictions and sentencing, Petitioner filed an appeal of right

with the Michigan Court of Appeals raising the same claims contained in his current petition. The

Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions but remanded for correction of his felony

firearm sentence from five years to two years imprisonment. People v. Crawford, No. 310179, 2013

WL 3335105 (Mich. Ct. App. July 2, 2013) (unpublished). Petitioner then filed an application for

leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied. People v. Crawford, _ Mich.

_, 838 N.W.2d 150 (Oct. 28, 2013). Petitioner dated his federal habeas petition, and the instant

motion, on September 2, 2014.

II. DISCUSSION

The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies requires state prisoners to fairly present all their

claims to the state courts before raising their claims in a federal habeas corpus petition. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999); Nali v. Phillips, 681 F.3d

837, 851 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 535 (2012). This requirement is satisfied

if a prisoner “invok[es] one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process,”

including a petition for discretionary review in the state supreme court, “when that review is part

of the ordinary appellate review procedure in the State.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. at 845,

847. Consequently, to be properly exhausted, each claim must have been fairly presented to the state

court of appeals and to the state supreme court. Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 418-19 (6th Cir.

2009).

2

2:14-cv-13499-GAD-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 09/22/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 38
Petitioner has exhausted state remedies for the sufficiency of the evidence, the addition of

the felonious assault charge and validity of the felony firearm sentence claims set forth in his habeas

petition, but he has not exhausted state remedies for his claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial

and appellate counsel. A dismissal of this case while Petitioner pursues additional state remedies

for the two unexhausted claims could preclude future consideration of Petitioner’s claims due to the

expiration of the one-year statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

In similar circumstances, some courts have adopted a “stay-and-abeyance” approach. Rhines v.

Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 275 (2005). Under this approach, a court stays the federal proceedings and

holds the habeas petition in abeyance while the inmate pursues state remedies for his or her

unexhausted claims. Id. After the state court completes its review of the inmate’s claims, the

federal court can lift its stay and allow the inmate to proceed in federal court. Id. at 275-76. 

Federal district courts have authority to issue stays, id. at 276, and it likely would be an abuse

of discretion to deny a stay and to dismiss a petition for failure to exhaust state remedies when the

petitioner has good cause for his failure to exhaust state remedies, his unexhausted claims are

potentially meritorious, and he is not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Id. 278. 

The petitioner’s interest in obtaining federal review of his claims in those circumstances “outweighs

the competing interests in finality and speedy resolution of federal petitions.” Id.

Petitioner seeks a stay so he may return to the state courts to exhaust state remedies for

ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. These claims are not plainly meritless. Nor

does it appear that Petitioner is engaged in dilatory litigation tactics and, if the Court dismissed the

habeas petition, a future petition could be time-barred. 

The Court concludes that it would be an abuse of discretion not to stay these proceedings

3

2:14-cv-13499-GAD-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 09/22/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 39
while Petitioner pursues additional state remedies. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to hold his habeas corpus petition

in abeyance [#3] is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Petitioner is unsuccessful in state court, he may return

to this Court and file an amended habeas corpus petition and a motion to re-open this case, using the

same case number that appears on this order. An amended petition and motion to re-open this case

must be filed within ninety (90) days of exhausting state remedies for Petitioner’s new claims. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case for

administrative purposes. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an adjudication of Petitioner’s

exhausted claims.

 /s/Gershwin A Drain 

 GERSHWIN A. DRAIN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Dated: September 22, 2014

4

2:14-cv-13499-GAD-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 09/22/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 40