UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TROY HAMILTON,

Petitioner, 

v.

RANDALL HAAS, 

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:14-CV-14616

HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY

OF PROCEEDINGS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

I. Introduction

Petitioner Troy Hamilton, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the Cooper

Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his convictions for five counts of

second-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c(1)(a), one count

of third degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520d(1)(a), and one

count of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520e(1)(a). 

Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings. The Court grants

the motion and administratively closes this matter. 

II. Background

Petitioner pleaded guilty in Livingston County Circuit Court and was sentenced on

December 16, 2010 as follows: 8 years, 4 months to fifteen years’ imprisonment for each

2:14-cv-14616-PDB-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/23/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 872
second-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction, 10 to 15 years’ imprisonment for the

third-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction, and 1 to 2 years’ imprisonment for the

fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction. 

Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Court of

Appeals, raising these claims: (i) guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary where

Petitioner was not advised he would have to register as a sex offender; (ii) trial counsel

was ineffective in failing to advise Petitioner of the consequences of his plea; and (iii)

guilty plea was involuntary where Petitioner was not advised he would be subject to

lifetime electronic monitoring. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal for

lack of merit in the grounds presented. See 4/30/2012 Order, People v. Hamilton, No.

309304 (ECF No. 7-11, Pg. ID 460). The Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s

application for leave to appeal. See People v. Hamilton, 493 Mich. 882 (Nov. 7, 2012). 

Petitioner then filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court, arguing

that his trial attorney coerced him into entering a guilty plea and his appellate attorney

was ineffective in failing to raise this claim on direct appeal. The trial court denied the

motion. See 4/15/13 Order, People v. Hamilton, No. 10-19113 & 10-19114 (ECF No. 7-

10, Pg. ID 457-59). The Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s subsequent

application for leave to appeal. See 12/27/13 Order, People v. Hamilton, No. 317448

(ECF No. 7-13, Pg. ID 651). The Michigan Supreme Court also denied leave to appeal. 

People v. Hamilton, 496 Mich. 858 (June 24, 2014). 

Petitioner then filed the pending habeas petition. He raises the same claims raised

2

2:14-cv-14616-PDB-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/23/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 873
on direct and collateral review in state court. Petitioner has also now filed a motion to

stay this proceeding while he presents an unexhausted claim in state court. 

III. Discussion

State prisoners must exhaust available state remedies for each of the claims

presented in a habeas petition before seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. §

2254(b)(1). Petitioner seeks a stay because, although the claims raised in the petition are

exhausted, he would like to raise an additional, unexhausted claim in state court. 

A federal court may stay a federal habeas petition and hold further proceedings in

abeyance pending resolution of state court post-conviction proceedings if outright

dismissal of a habeas petition would jeopardize the timeliness of a future petition, there is

good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust those claims, the unexhausted claims are

not “plainly meritless,” and “there is no indication that the petitioner engaged in

intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). 

In the pending case, Petitioner’s unexhausted claim concerns a claimed Double

Jeopardy violation. It does not appear that he is engaged in dilatory litigation tactics and

the claim is not plainly meritless. Petitioner claims that he did not previously raise this

claim in state court because it is recently discovered. Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(1)

generally permits a defendant to file only one motion for relief from judgment. Petitioner

already has filed a motion for relief from judgment. However, Michigan Court Rule

6.502(G)(2) permits a defendant to file a successive motion for relief from judgment

under certain limited circumstances. Petitioner argues that his Double Jeopardy claim

3

2:14-cv-14616-PDB-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/23/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 874
falls within an exception to the ban on successive motions because it represents a radical

jurisdictional defect. Petitioner should be permitted to present this claim to the state court

because he would not otherwise be permitted to amend his petition to contain an

unexhausted claim. Furthermore, dismissal of this case while Petitioner pursues state

remedies could result in a subsequent petition being barred by the one year statute of

limitations found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). The Court therefore concludes that it is not an

abuse of discretion to stay this case while Petitioner pursues additional state remedies.

When a district court determines that a stay is appropriate pending resolution of

state court remedies, the district court “should place reasonable time limits on a

petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. To ensure that

Petitioner does not delay in exhausting his state court remedies, the Court imposes time

limits within which he must proceed. See Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir.

2002). Petitioner must present his claim in state court within sixty days from the date of

this Order. See id. Petitioner must also ask this court to lift the stay within sixty days of

completing state court review. See id. “If the conditions of the stay are not met, the stay

may later be vacated nunc pro tunc as of the date the stay was entered, and the petition

may be dismissed.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

4

2:14-cv-14616-PDB-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/23/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 875
IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s “Motion to Stay Writ of Habeas

Corpus” (ECF No. 10). The habeas petition is STAYED and further proceedings in this

matter are held in ABEYANCE. If Petitioner fails to file a motion for relief from

judgment with the state trial court within sixty days from the date of this order, the Court

will dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. Petitioner shall file

a motion to lift the stay and an amended petition in this Court within sixty days after the

conclusion of the state court proceedings.

The Court further ORDERS that, to avoid administrative difficulties, the Clerk of

Court shall close this case for statistical purposes only. 

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 23, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each

attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on March

23, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

5

2:14-cv-14616-PDB-DRG Doc # 11 Filed 03/23/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 876