UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

PAUL POZNIAK, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 14-cv-12649 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

MARY BERGHUIS, 

 Respondent. 

__________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

 This is a habeas case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Paul Pozniak is 

incarcerated at the Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility in Muskegon Heights, Michigan. 

Petitioner was convicted in the Macomb Circuit Court of first-degree murder, and he was 

sentenced to life in prison. The petition raises two claims: (1) the prosecutor submitted 

insufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s conviction; and (2) Petitioner was denied the 

effective assistance of counsel. 

 Petitioner has filed a motion to stay the proceedings. He enumerates an additional five 

claims he wishes to raise in his petition: (1) he was denied the right to counsel at a pretrial 

identification proceeding; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct; (3) the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction; (4) Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective for additional reasons not asserted on 

direct appeal; and (5) Petitioner was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. He 

admits that these claims were not contained in his direct appeal. He asserts that he intends to file 

a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court, raising these claims. 

1:14-cv-12649-TLL-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 09/10/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 185
- 2 - 

I 

 A prisoner filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 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. See 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. See Koontz 

v. Glossa, 731 F.2d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 1984). A Michigan prisoner must properly present each 

issue he seeks to raise in a federal habeas proceeding to both the Michigan Court of Appeals and 

the Michigan Supreme Court to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See 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 petitioner must exhaust all available state remedies before seeking federal habeas review. See

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. 

 A federal district court has discretion to stay a petition to allow a petitioner to present 

unexhausted claims to the state courts and then return to federal court on a perfected petition. 

See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005). Stay and abeyance is available in circumstances 

where 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 

1:14-cv-12649-TLL-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 09/10/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 186
- 3 - 

petitioner has not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics, and the unexhausted claims 

are not “plainly meritless.” Id. at 277. 

 Because of concerns regarding the statute of limitation, Petitioner’s motion for a stay will 

be granted.1 However, even where a district court determines that a stay is appropriate pending 

exhaustion 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 there are no 

delays by Petitioner in exhausting his state court remedies, time limits will be imposed for 

Petitioner to proceed with his state court post-conviction proceedings. See Palmer v. Carlton, 

276 F. 3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). Petitioner shall file his motion for relief from judgment in 

the state trial court within thirty (30) days of this order. If he timely files his motion for relief 

from judgment and if his bid for state post-conviction relief fails, he must return to federal court 

within thirty (30) days of completing exhaustion of state court post-conviction remedies and file 

a motion to reopen this case. Hargrove, 300 F. 3d at 721; see also Geeter v. Bouchard, 293 F. 

Supp. 2d 773, 775 (E.D. Mich. 2003). 

II 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to hold the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in abeyance (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. Petitioner must timely pursue his state 

court remedies by filing a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court within thirty (30) 

days of this order, and if he does not obtain relief, he must file appeals in the Michigan Court of 

Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. 

 

1

Petitioner’s direct appeal ended when the Michigan Supreme Court denied his application for leave to appeal on 

July 30, 2013. People v. Pozniak, No. 146890 (Mich. Sup. Ct. July 30, 2013). The current habeas petition was filed 

nearly a year later on July 7, 2014. 

1:14-cv-12649-TLL-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 09/10/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 187
- 4 - 

 After Petitioner has exhausted his claims, Petitioner shall then file a motion to re-open 

this case and an amended petition within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the state court 

post-conviction proceedings. Petitioner shall file this motion using the caption and case number 

from this case. 

 To avoid administrative difficulties, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE 

this case for statistical purposes only. Nothing in this order or in the related docket entry shall be 

considered a dismissal or disposition of this matter. See Sitto v. Bock, 207 F. Supp. 2d at 677. 

 It is further ORDERED that upon receipt of a motion to reinstate the habeas petition 

following exhaustion of state remedies, the Court may order the Clerk to reopen this case. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: September 10, 2014 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

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

upon Paul Pozniak #170303 at Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility, 

2500 S. Sheridan Drive, Muskegon Heights, MI 49444 by first class 

U.S. mail on September 10, 2014. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cv-12649-TLL-MJH Doc # 6 Filed 09/10/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 188