UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Keyon Clinton, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Jeffery Woods, 

Respondent. 

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-11652 

Hon. Judith E. Levy 

Mag. Judge Michael J. Hluchaniuk 

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO STAY AND HOLD THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS IN ABEYANCE [5] 

 Keyon Clinton (“Petitioner”) is a Michigan state prisioner, and 

filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in 

the Macomb Circuit Court of multiple offenses, including kidnapping, 

armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and possession of 

a firearm during the commission of a felony. According to the petition, 

Petitioner is serving a controlling sentence of thirty-five to sixty years’ 

imprisonment for these offenses and a consecutive two-year term for the 

firearm conviction. The petition, as presently constituted, raises six 

5:15-cv-11652-JEL-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/18/16 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 315
2 

claims: (1) new reliable evidence proves that Petitioner is actually 

innocent, (2) Petitioner was denied counsel at a critical stage of the 

proceedings, (3) Petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the 

unreliable identification testimony of the sole eyewitness, (4) the sole 

eyewitness gave false and perjured testimony, (5) Petitioner was denied 

the effective assistance of trial counsel, and (6) Petitioner was denied 

the effective assistance of appellate counsel. 

 Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to stay his case so he can 

return to the state courts and exhaust two additional claims that he 

asserts are based on newly discovered evidence. (Dkt. 5.) Specifically, 

Petitioner claims that his trial counsel failed to communicate a plea 

offer made by the prosecution, violating his rights under Lafler v. 

Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012). Petitioner also claims to have 

discovered evidence that the jurors were exposed to an extraneous 

influence in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. 

 For the reasons set forth below, the Court holds the petition in 

abeyance and stays the proceedings under the terms outlined in this 

opinion and order to permit Petitioner to exhaust his new claim. 

5:15-cv-11652-JEL-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/18/16 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 316
3 

I. Background 

 Following his conviction and sentence, Petitioner pursued an 

appeal of right. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in an 

unpublished opinion. People v. Clinton, No. 261378, 2006 Mich. App. 

LEXIS 3015, at *9 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2006). The Michigan 

Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.

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

and the motion was denied by order dated August 27, 2010. (Dkt. 1-2 at 

7-11.) Reconsideration was denied on September 29, 2010. (Id. at 12-

14.) Petitioner appealed this decision, but the Michigan Court of 

Appeals denied relief, and the Michigan Supreme Court subsequently 

denied relief as well. (Id. at 14-15.) 

 Petitioner claims to have received new evidence regarding some of 

his claims presented in his habeas petition after his first state postconviction proceeding. Based on this, he filed a second motion for relief 

from judgment in the trial court in January 2013. (Id. at 16-21.) The 

trial court denied the motion by order dated September 20, 2013. (Dkt. 

1-4 at 1.) Petitioner appealed this decision, but relief was denied by 

both state appellate courts. (Dkt. 1-5 at 27, 38.) 

5:15-cv-11652-JEL-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/18/16 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 317
4 

 Petitioner filed the instant action on May 7, 2015. 

II. 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 two additional, unexhausted claims in state court. 

 A federal court may stay a federal habeas petition and hold 

further proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of state court postconviction proceedings if outright dismissal of a habeas petition would 

potentially 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). 

 Here, Petitioner’s unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless, 

and he does not appear to be engaged in dilatory litigation tactics. He 

has alleged good cause for not previously exhausting his new claims 

because they are allegedly based on newly discovered evidence. 

5:15-cv-11652-JEL-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/18/16 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 318
5 

Moreover, Respondent has not filed a response in opposition to 

Petitioner’s motion to stay. 

 Petitioner appears to have an available state remedy to exhaust— 

a motion for relief from judgment under subchapter 6.500 of the 

Michigan Court Rules. Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(1) generally 

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

And Petitioner has already filed two motions for relief from judgment. 

But Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(2) permits a defendant to file a 

successive motion for relief from judgment under certain, limited 

circumstances, including when the defendant’s claims are based upon 

newly discovered evidence. 

Therefore, an avenue for exhaustion may remain available to 

Petitioner in state court. Moreover, dismissal of this case while 

Petitioner pursues state remedies could result in a subsequent petition 

being barred by the one year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d). The Court thus 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 exhaustion of state court remedies, the district court “should 

5:15-cv-11652-JEL-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/18/16 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 319
6 

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 pursuing his state court remedies, tolling is conditioned on 

Petitioner diligently pursuing relief in the state courts by filing a 

motion for relief from judgment in the trial court within sixty days of 

this order, pursuing a timely appeal in the state courts if the motion is 

denied, and then returning to federal court within sixty days of 

completing the exhaustion of his state court post-conviction remedies. 

See Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). 

III. Conclusion 

 Petitioner’s motion to stay (Dkt. 5) is granted. The petition for 

writ of habeas corpus shall be held in abeyance pending completion of 

Petitioner’s state application for post-conviction relief. This tolling is 

conditioned upon Petitioner filing his motion for relief from judgment 

within sixty (60) days of this order and then re-filing his habeas 

petition—using the case number already assigned to this case—within 

sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the state court post-conviction 

proceedings. 

5:15-cv-11652-JEL-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/18/16 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 320
7 

 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, e.g., Sitto v. Bock, 207 F. Supp. 2d 668, 

677 (E.D. Mich. 2002). 

 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 for statistical purposes. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 18, 2016 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on April 18, 2016. 

s/Felicia M. Moses 

FELICIA M. MOSES 

Case Manager 

5:15-cv-11652-JEL-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 04/18/16 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 321