UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRY PATTERSON,

Petitioner, 

v.

JEFF WOODS,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 15-12431

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (Doc. 5)

AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

I. Introduction

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Terry Patterson

(Petitioner) is a state inmate at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe,

Michigan. Petitioner was convicted in St. Clair County Circuit Court of assault with

intent to commit murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder, and

several other felonies. Petitioner was a juvenile at the time the offenses were

committed, but was sentenced as an adult to parolable life sentences for the assault

with intent to commit murder and conspiracy to commit murder convictions. He has filed

a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging these sentences on the ground

that, under Michigan law, parolable life is materially indistinguishable from life without

parole, and, therefore, his sentences are unconstitutional under Graham v. Florida, 560

U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. —, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). 

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings and hold his petition

2:15-cv-12431-AC-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/16/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 66
in abeyance to permit him to exhaust this claim by completing his post-conviction

proceedings in state court. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted. 

II. Background

Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in St. Clair County Circuit Court of

assault with intent to commit murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit first-degree

premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, receiving and concealing

stolen firearms, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was

sixteen years old at the time of the offenses. The trial court sentenced him as an adult

to the following terms of imprisonment: parolable life for the assault and conspiracy to

commit murder convictions, forty to sixty years for the armed robbery conviction, twenty

to sixty years for the conspiracy to commit armed robbery conviction, six to ten years for

the receiving and concealing stolen firearms conviction, and two years for the felonyfirearm conviction. 

Petitioner filed an appeal of right in the Michigan Court of Appeals raising several

issues, including a claim that the trial court abused its discretion under state law in

sentencing him as an adult rather than a juvenile. The Michigan Court of Appeals

affirmed Petitioner’s convictions, but vacated Petitioner’s sentences and remanded to

the trial court because the trial court failed to hold a hearing to determine whether

Petitioner should be sentenced as an adult or a juvenile as required by state law. 

People v. Patterson, No. 199246, 1998 WL 1989753, *3 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 18, 1998). 

On remand, after the required hearing, the trial court resentenced Petitioner as an adult

and imposed the same sentence previously given. The Michigan Court of Appeals

affirmed the sentence. People v. Patterson, No. 199246, 1999 WL 33326820 (Mich. Ct.

2

2:15-cv-12431-AC-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/16/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 67
App. Dec. 17, 1999). According to Petitioner, his application for leave to appeal to the

Michigan Supreme Court was rejected because it was not timely filed.

On June 25, 2013, Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from

judgment with the St. Clair County Circuit Court, challenging his life sentence. The trial

court denied the motion. People v. Patterson, No. 96-001371-FC (St. Clair County

Circuit Court, August 13, 2014). The Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s

application for leave to appeal. People v. Patterson, No. 325995 (Mich. Ct. App. April

30, 2015). Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan

Supreme Court, which remains pending in that court.

III. Discussion

Petitioner asks this Court to hold his petition in abeyance pending while he

exhausts his available state court remedies. 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). 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). To exhaust a habeas claim in

state court, a petitioner must “‘present his claim to the state courts as a federal

constitutional issue – not merely as an issue arising under state law.’” Hruby v. Wilson,

494 F. App’x 514, 517 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting 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. Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410,

3

2:15-cv-12431-AC-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/16/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 68
414 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 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 v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994).

Here, Petitioner’s claim is unexhausted because it remains pending before the

Michigan Supreme Court. A federal court may stay a federal habeas petition and hold

further proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of state court post-conviction

proceedings, provided there is good cause for failure to exhaust claims, the

unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless,” and the petitioner is not “engage[d] in

abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78

(2005). A district court should stay proceedings pending exhaustion where to do

otherwise would jeopardize the timeliness of a subsequent petition. See Griffin v.

Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 652 & 652 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2002). 

Petitioner has reasons to be concerned about the statute of limitations under 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Petitioner filed his motion for relief from judgment in the trial court

on June 25, 2012. Assuming that the appropriate trigger date for the limitations period

is June 25, 2012, the day the Supreme Court issued its decision in Miller v. Alabama,

Petitioner has no time remaining on the limitations period. If the Court dismisses the

present petition without prejudice, it would be virtually impossible for Petitioner to return

to this Court to file a new petition after exhausting his state court remedies. Petitioner’s

claim is not “plainly meritless,” and he has shown good cause for failing previously to

raise this claim because the Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller was not available at the

4

2:15-cv-12431-AC-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/16/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 69
time of Petitioner’s direct appeal. Finally, it does not appear that Petitioner has

engaged in “abusive litigation tactics or intentional delay.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278. 

When 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.” Id. at 278. To ensure that Petitioner does not

delay in exhausting state court remedies, he must ask this Court to lift the stay within

sixty days of exhausting his state court remedies. See id. “If the conditions of the stay

are not met, the stay may later be vacated nunc pro tunc as of the date the stay was

entered, and the petition may be dismissed.” Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th

Cir. 2002) (internal quotation omitted). At this time, the Court makes no finding as to the

timeliness of this petition. 

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, Petitioner’s to stay proceedings is GRANTED. This case is 

STAYED and further proceedings in this matter are held in ABEYANCE. Petitioner shall

file a motion to lift the stay in this Court within sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the

state court proceedings.

To avoid administrative difficulties, the Clerk shall close this case for statistical

purposes only. Nothing in this order or in the related docket entry shall be considered a

dismissal of this matter. 

SO ORDERED. 

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

Dated: September 16, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Detroit, Michigan

5

2:15-cv-12431-AC-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 09/16/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 70