UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

JASON HUBBERT, 

 Petitioner, Civil No. 4:14-CV-11719 

 Honorable Linda V. Parker 

v. 

BONITA HOFFMAN, 

 Respondent. 

_______________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND AND/OR TO STAY THE 

HABEAS PROCEEDING AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

 Petitioner Jason Hubbert, a state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan 

Department of Corrections, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed an answer in opposition. Now before 

the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Amend and/or Administratively Stay the 

Habeas Proceeding. Petitioner seeks to amend his petition to add unexhausted 

claims or, in the alternative, asks the Court to stay this proceeding to allow him to 

exhaust his state court remedies. 

 Petitioner seeks to amend his petition to raise claims related to the Michigan 

Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lockridge, -- N.W.2d --, 498 Mich. 358 

(2015). A federal district court has discretion to allow amendment of a habeas 

petition after a responsive pleading has been filed. See Rule 11, Rules Governing 

4:14-cv-11719-LVP-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 745
2 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cases; Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Nevertheless, a federal court may 

not grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner unless the prisoner first exhausts 

his remedies in state court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). The 

exhaustion doctrine requires prisoners to “fairly present” their claims as federal 

constitutional issues in the state courts before raising those claims in a federal 

habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) & (c); O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 

844. To properly exhaust state court remedies, a prisoner must invoke one 

complete round of the state’s established appellate review process, including a 

petition for discretionary review to a state supreme court. See O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. 

at 845. In Michigan, this means the petitioner must present each of his or her 

ground for habeas relief to both Michigan appellate courts before seeking federal 

habeas relief. See Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990). The 

petitioner bears the burden of showing that state-court remedies have been 

exhausted. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Darr v. Burford, 

339 U.S. 200, 218-19 (1950)). 

 Petitioner concedes that he has not yet raised his Lockridge-related claims in 

state court. Because these claims are unexhausted, the Court will not allow 

Petitioner to amend his petition at this time to add these claims. See Rockwell v. 

Yukins, 217 F.3d 421, 424 (6th Cir. 2000) (holding that a district court should not 

4:14-cv-11719-LVP-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 746
3 

allow a habeas petitioner to amend a petition to add an unexhausted claim). 

Alternatively, Petitioner seeks the relief of a stay. 

A federal district court has discretion to stay a habeas petition to allow a 

petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state courts in the first instance and 

then return to federal court on a perfected petition. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 

269, 276 (2005) (recognizing the court’s discretion to stay and establishing criteria 

for stay). A stay may be granted when the petitioner has “good cause for his 

failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is 

no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” 

Id. at 278 (citing Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982)). The Court finds that a 

stay is warranted in this case. 

First, the 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). Second, the Court finds that Petitioner has good 

cause for failing to exhaust his claims because the Lockridge case was decided 

after he filed his petition. Third, the Lockridge-related claims do not appear to be 

plainly meritless. Fourth, there is no evidence of intentional delay. Under these 

circumstances, the Court concludes it is not an abuse of discretion to stay this case 

while Petitioner pursues state remedies for his unexhausted claims. 

4:14-cv-11719-LVP-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 747
4 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend and/or 

Administratively Stay the Habeas Proceeding (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED IN 

PART AND DENIED IN PART in that the Court denies Petitioner’s request to 

amend his petition, but grants his request for a stay; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the stay is conditioned on Petitioner 

presenting his unexhausted claims to the state courts within sixty (60) days of the 

filing date of this order and returning to this Court within sixty (60) days of fully 

exhausting his state court remedies by the filing of a motion to reopen and amend 

the petition, using the same caption and case number included at the top of this 

Order. Should Petitioner fail to comply with any of these conditions, his petition 

may be dismissed; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is CLOSED for administrative 

purposes pending compliance with the conditions set forth in this Order. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 26, 2016 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 26, 2016, by electronic and/or U.S. 

4:14-cv-11719-LVP-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 748
5 

First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:14-cv-11719-LVP-PTM Doc # 12 Filed 04/26/16 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 749