UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NATHANIEL LEE HINES, #452677,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-13983

v. HONORABLE NANCY G. EDMUNDS

KEN ROMANOWSKI,

Respondent.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY,

AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

I. Introduction

Michigan prisoner Nathaniel Lee Hines (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se petition for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his current confinement. 

Petitioner pleaded guilty to first-degree home invasion, MICH.COMP. LAWS § 750.110a, and

unlawfully driving away an automobile, MICH.COMP.LAWS § 750.413, in the Ingham County

Circuit Court. He was sentenced to 4 years 7 months to 20 years imprisonment on the

home invasion conviction and 3 years 4 months to 5 years imprisonment on the unlawfully

driving away conviction in 2004.

In his habeas application, Petitioner raises claims concerning illegal arrest, case

dismissal and closure, improper charges/recharges for the same crime, and improper

complaint. He also makes references to improper/lack of preliminary examination, a

violation of the right against self-incrimination, and prosecutorial misconduct in his

pleadings. Petitioner indicates that he did not pursue a direct appeal or collateral review

2:14-cv-13983-NGE-PTM Doc # 3 Filed 10/22/14 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 44
of his convictions and that he has not presented his habeas claims to the state courts. For

the reasons stated, the Court dismisses without prejudice the petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. The Court also denies a certificate of appealability and denies leave to proceed

in forma pauperis on appeal.

II. Analysis

A prisoner filing a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 must first exhaust all state

remedies. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (“state prisoners must

give the state courts one full fair opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking

one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process”); Rust v. Zent, 17

F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). To satisfy this requirement, the claims must be “fairly

presented” to the state courts, meaning that the prisoner must have asserted both the

factual and legal bases for the claims in the state courts. McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d

674, 681 (6th Cir. 2000); see also Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789, 806 (6th Cir. 2006)

(citing McMeans). The claims must also be presented to the state courts as federal

constitutional issues. Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 1984). Each issue

must be presented to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court to

satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Welch v. Burke, 49 F. Supp. 2d 992, 998 (E.D. Mich.

1999); see also Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990). While the

exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, a “strong presumption” exists that a prisoner

must exhaust available state remedies before seeking federal habeas review. Granberry

v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 131, 134-35 (1987). The burden is on the petitioner to prove

exhaustion. Rust, 17 F.3d at 160.

In this case, Petitioner admits that he has not exhausted his habeas claims in the

2

2:14-cv-13983-NGE-PTM Doc # 3 Filed 10/22/14 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 45
Michigan courts before proceeding in this Court on federal habeas review. Petitioner has

an available avenue for relief in the state court system such that his pursuit of state court

remedies would not be futile. For example, he may file a motion for relief from judgment

with the state trial court under Michigan Court Rule 6.500 et seq. and seek further review

in the state appellate courts as necessary. The unexhausted claims should be addressed

to, and considered by, the state courts in the first instance. Otherwise, the Court cannot

apply the standard found at 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

A federal district court has discretion to stay a mixed habeas petition, containing both

exhausted and unexhausted claims, to allow a petitioner to present the unexhausted claims

to the state courts in the first instance 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 applicable to

federal habeas actions poses a concern, and when the petitioner demonstrates “good

cause” for the failure to exhaust state court remedies before proceeding in federal court

and the unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless.” Id. at 277.

A stay is unwarranted here. First, Petitioner does not request a stay nor assert that

his circumstances justify a stay – and he indicates that all of his claims are unexhausted. 

Second, the habeas petition appears to already be untimely under the one-year statute of

limitations applicable to federal habeas actions, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), because

Petitioner waited more than one year after his convictions became final to institute this

action such that a non-prejudicial dismissal will not further affect the timeliness of the

petition. Third, even assuming that Petitioner has not engaged in “intentionally dilatory

tactics,” he has not shown good cause for failing to exhaust his claims in the state courts

3

2:14-cv-13983-NGE-PTM Doc # 3 Filed 10/22/14 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 46
before seeking habeas relief in federal court. Lastly, the Court cannot discern whether

Petitioner’s unexhausted claims are “plainly meritless” from his current pleadings. Given

such circumstances, a stay is unwarranted and a non-prejudicial dismissal of the petition

is appropriate.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not presented his

habeas claims to the state courts before filing this action, that he must properly exhaust his

claims in the state courts before proceeding on federal habeas review, and that a stay is

unwarranted. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petition for

a writ of habeas corpus. The Court makes no determination as to the timeliness or the

merits of Petitioner’s claims.

Before Petitioner may appeal the Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability must

issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(a); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability may

issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When a district court denies relief on procedural grounds

without addressing the merits of a claim, a certificate of appealability should issue if it is

shown that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petitioner states a valid

claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484-85 (2000). Having considered the matter, the Court concludes that reasonable jurists

could not debate the correctness of the Court’s procedural ruling. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court also DENIES leave to proceed in forma

4

2:14-cv-13983-NGE-PTM Doc # 3 Filed 10/22/14 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 47
pauperis on appeal as an appeal cannot be taken in good faith. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Nancy G. Edmunds

NANCY G. EDMUNDS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 22, 2014

5

2:14-cv-13983-NGE-PTM Doc # 3 Filed 10/22/14 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 48