UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHARON RUTH BROADWAY, #861919,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-11917 

v. HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN

ANTHONY STEWART,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION

TO STAY AND HOLD PETITION IN ABEYANCE

I.

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

Sharon Ruth Broadway (“Petitioner”) pleaded guilty to maintaining a criminal enterprise,

MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.159i(2), and embezzlement from a financial institution, MICH.

COMP. LAWS § 750.180, in the Monroe County Circuit Court. She was sentenced to

concurrent terms of 3 years 9 months to 20 years imprisonment and 10 months to 20 years

imprisonment in 2013. In her current petition, she raises an insufficient evidence claim. 

The matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion to stay the proceedings and hold her

habeas petition in abeyance so that she may return to the state courts and exhaust an

additional issue concerning the scoring of Offense Variable 9 of the state sentencing

guidelines. For the reasons stated, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion.

2:15-cv-11917-PDB-APP Doc # 9 Filed 04/20/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 265
II.

Petitioner’s convictions arise from her embezzlement of more than $1,000,000

from her Catholic credit union employer over the course of several years. Following

sentencing, Petitioner filed a delayed application for leave to appeal with the Michigan

Court of Appeals raising an insufficient evidence claim and a double jeopardy claim. The

court denied leave to appeal for lack of merit in the grounds presented. People v.

Broadway, No. 318095 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2013) (unpublished). Petitioner then

filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court, which was

denied in a standard order. People v. Broadway, 495 Mich. 1007, 846 N.W.2d 402 (May

27, 2014). Petitioner dated her federal habeas petition, and the instant motion, on May

18, 2015 and those pleadings were filed by the Court on May 27, 2015. Respondent has

filed an answer to the petition and the state court record, but has not filed a separate

response to the instant motion.

III.

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

2

2:15-cv-11917-PDB-APP Doc # 9 Filed 04/20/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 266
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). 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. 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. 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 court has discretion to stay a mixed habeas petition, containing both

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

the state courts 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 poses a concern, and when the petitioner

demonstrates “good cause” for the failure to exhaust state remedies before proceeding in

federal court, the petitioner has not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics, and

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

Petitioner has not shown the need for a stay. Her current habeas claim is

exhausted and she fails to show that the one-year statute of limitations applicable to

3

2:15-cv-11917-PDB-APP Doc # 9 Filed 04/20/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 267
federal habeas actions, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), poses a concern. The one-year period

does not begin to run until 90 days after the conclusion of direct appeal, see Jimenez v.

Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113, 120 (2009) (a conviction becomes final when “the time for

filing a certiorari petition expires”); Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327, 333 (2007). The

Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on May 27, 2014 and the time for

seeking a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court expired on August 25,

2014. Petitioner dated her federal habeas petition on May 18, 2015. Thus, less than nine

months of the one-year period had expired when Petitioner instituted this action. While

the time in which this case has been pending in federal court is not statutorily tolled, see

Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2001) (a federal habeas petition is not an

“application for State post-conviction or other collateral review” within the meaning of 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) so as to statutorily toll the limitations period), such time is normally

equitably tolled. Johnson v. Warren, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1088-89 (E.D. Mich. 2004). 

The limitations period would also be tolled while any properly filed post-conviction or

collateral actions are pending in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2); Carey v.

Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-21 (2002). Given that more than three months of the one-year

period remains, Petitioner has not shown the need for a stay.

Moreover, while there is no evidence of intentional delay, Petitioner neither

alleges nor establishes good cause for her failure to present her unexhausted sentencing

claim to the state courts before seeking federal habeas review.

4

2:15-cv-11917-PDB-APP Doc # 9 Filed 04/20/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 268
Lastly, Petitioner’s sentencing claim is “plainly meritless” for purposes of federal

habeas relief. A challenge to the scoring of Offense Variable 9 of the Michigan

sentencing guidelines is not cognizable on federal habeas review because it is a state law

claim. See Howard v. White, 76 F. App’x 52, 53 (6th Cir. 2003) (“A state court’s alleged

misinterpretation of state sentencing guidelines and crediting statutes is a matter of state

concern only.”); Cheatham v. Hosey, 12 F.3d 211, 1993 WL 478854, *2 (6th Cir. Nov.

19, 1993) (departure from state sentencing guidelines is a state law issue not cognizable

on federal habeas review); McPhail v. Renico, 412 F. Supp. 2d 647, 656 (E.D. Mich.

2006); Robinson v. Stegall, 157 F. Supp. 2d 802, 823 (E.D. Mich. 2001). State courts are

the final arbiters of state law and the federal courts will not intervene in such matters. 

Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990); Oviedo v. Jago, 809 F.2d 326, 328 (6th Cir.

1987); see also Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74, 76 (2005) (“a state court’s

interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged

conviction, binds a federal court sitting on habeas review”); Sanford v. Yukins, 288 F.3d

855, 860 (6th Cir. 2002). Habeas relief does not lie for perceived errors of state law. 

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Petitioner’s claim is thus not potentially

meritorious. A stay is unwarranted. See, e.g., Harris v. Rivard, No. 2:14-CV-12443,

2015 WL 4274957 (E.D. Mich. July 14, 2015) (denying stay motion where petitioner

failed to show good cause and unexhausted claim was a state law issue).

5

2:15-cv-11917-PDB-APP Doc # 9 Filed 04/20/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 269
IV.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to stay

and hold her petition in abeyance. The Court shall proceed on the claim contained in the

pending habeas petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 20, 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 April 20,

2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

6

2:15-cv-11917-PDB-APP Doc # 9 Filed 04/20/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 270