1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FREDERICK A. MATTHEWS, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 15-12264 

 Hon. Terrence G. Berg 

v. 

THOMAS WINN, 

 Respondent, 

_________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING THE MOTION TO STAY (Dkt. # 9), 

(2) HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, AND (3) ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE. 

Frederick Matthews (“Petitioner”) confined at the Saginaw Correctional 

Facility in Freeland, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his pro se application, Petitioner challenges his 

conviction for first-degree home invasion, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.110a(2), and 

possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony [felony-firearm], Mich. Comp. 

Laws § 750.227b. Petitioner has filed a motion to hold the petition in abeyance to 

permit him to return to the state courts to present additional claims that have not 

been exhausted and that are not included in his current habeas petition. 

 For the reasons stated below, the Court will hold the petition in abeyance and 

stay the proceedings under the terms outlined in this opinion to permit Petitioner to 

return to the state courts to exhaust his additional claims. The Court will also 

administratively close the case. 

4:15-cv-12264-TGB-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 06/10/16 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 460
2 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Allegan County Circuit Court. 

Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. People v. Matthews, No. 313021, 

2014 WL 129327 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2014); People v. Matthews, 496 Mich. 865, 

849 N.W. 2d 358 (2014). 

 On June 16, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.1 

Petitioner seeks habeas relief on the claims that he raised in the state courts on his 

direct appeal. 

Petitioner has now filed a motion to stay the proceedings and hold the 

petition in abeyance so that he can return to the state courts and exhaust additional 

claims that are not included in his current petition. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A federal district court is authorized to stay fully exhausted federal habeas 

petitions pending the exhaustion of other claims in the state courts. See Nowaczyk 

v. Warden, New Hampshire State Prison, 299 F.3d 69, 77-79 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding 

that district courts should “take seriously any request for a stay.”); Anthony v. 

Cambra, 236 F. 3d 568, 575 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Bowling v. Haeberline, 246 Fed. 

App’x. 303, 306 (6th Cir. 2007) (a habeas court is entitled to delay a decision in a 

habeas petition that contains only exhausted claims “when considerations of comity 

and judicial economy would be served”) (quoting Nowaczyk, 299 F. 3d at 83); see also

Thomas v. Stoddard, 89 F. Supp. 3d 937, 943 (E.D. Mich. 2015). Indeed, although 

 

1 Under the prison mailbox rule, this Court assumes that Petitioner filed his habeas petition on June 

16, 2015, the date that it was signed and dated. See Towns v. U.S., 190 F. 3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 

1999). 

4:15-cv-12264-TGB-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 06/10/16 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 461
3 

there is no bright-line rule that a district court can never dismiss a fully-exhausted 

habeas petition because of the pendency of unexhausted claims in state court, in 

order for a federal court to justify departing from the “heavy obligation to exercise 

jurisdiction,” there must be some compelling reason to prefer a dismissal over a 

stay. Nowaczyk, 299 F. 3d at 82 (internal quotation omitted); see also Bowling, 246 

Fed. App’x. at 306 (district court erred in dismissing petition containing only 

exhausted claims, as opposed to exercising its jurisdiction over petition, merely 

because petitioner had independent proceeding pending in state court involving 

other claims). 

The Court grants Petitioner’s motion to hold the petition in abeyance while 

he returns to the state courts to exhaust his new claims. In making this 

determination, “the Court considers the consequences to the habeas petitioner if it 

were to proceed to adjudicate the petition and find that relief is not warranted 

before the state courts ruled on unexhausted claims. In that scenario, should the 

petitioner subsequently seek habeas relief on the claims the state courts rejected, he 

would have to clear the high hurdle of filing a second habeas petition.” Thomas, 89 

F. Supp. 3d at 942 (citing 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)). Moreover, “if this Court were to 

proceed in parallel with state post-conviction proceedings, there is a risk of wasting 

judicial resources if the state court might grant relief on the unexhausted claim.” 

Id. Other considerations also merit granting a stay. This Court is currently not in 

a position to determine whether Petitioner’s new claims have any merit, thus, the 

Court cannot say that his claims are “plainly meritless.” Id. at 943. Nor, on the 

4:15-cv-12264-TGB-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 06/10/16 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 462
4 

other hand, can the Court conclude that Petitioner’s new claims plainly warrant 

habeas relief. Id. If the state courts deny post-conviction relief, this Court would 

still benefit from the state courts’ adjudication of these claims in determining 

whether to permit Petitioner to amend his petition to add these claims. Id. Finally, 

this Court sees no prejudice to Respondent in staying this case, whereas Petitioner 

“could be prejudiced by having to simultaneously fight two proceedings in separate 

courts and, as noted, if this Court were to rule before the state courts, [petitioner] 

would have the heavy burden of satisfying 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)’s second-orsuccessive-petition requirements” should he seek habeas relief on his new claims. 

Thomas, 89 F. Supp. 3d at 943. 

 However, even where a district court determines that a stay is appropriate 

pending exhaustion, the district court “should place reasonable time limits on a 

petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). 

To ensure that there are no delays by Petitioner in exhausting his state court 

remedies, this Court will impose time limits within which Petitioner must proceed 

with his state court post-conviction proceedings. See Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F. 3d 

777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). 

 The Court holds the petition in abeyance to allow Petitioner to initiate postconviction proceedings in the state courts. This tolling is conditioned upon 

Petitioner initiating his state post-conviction remedies within 90 days of receiving 

this Court’s order and returning to federal court within 90 days of completing the 

4:15-cv-12264-TGB-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 06/10/16 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 463
5 

exhaustion of state court post-conviction remedies. Hargrove, 300 F. 3d at 721; see 

also Geeter v. Bouchard, 293 F. Supp. 2d 773, 775 (E.D. Mich. 2003). 

Petitioner’s method of properly exhausting these claims in the state courts 

would be through filing a motion for relief from judgment with the Allegan County 

Circuit Court under M.C.R. 6.502. See Wagner v. Smith, 581 F. 3d 410, 419 (6th 

Cir. 2009); see also Mikko v. Davis, 342 F. Supp. 2d 643, 646 (E.D. Mich. 2004). A 

trial court is authorized to appoint counsel for Petitioner, seek a response from the 

prosecutor, expand the record, permit oral argument, and hold an evidentiary 

hearing. M.C.R. 6.505-6.507, 6.508 (B) and (C). Denial of a motion for relief from 

judgment is reviewable by the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan 

Supreme Court upon the filing of an application for leave to appeal. M.C.R. 6.509; 

M.C.R. 7.203; M.C.R. 7.302; Nasr v. Stegall, 978 F. Supp. 714, 717 (E.D. Mich. 

1997). Petitioner is required to appeal the denial of his post-conviction motion to 

the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court in order to 

properly exhaust the claims that he would raise in his post-conviction motion. See 

e.g., Mohn v. Bock, 208 F. Supp. 2d 796, 800 (E.D. Mich. 2002). 

III. ORDER 

 Accordingly, the Court Petitioner’s motion to stay and hold his habeas 

petition in abeyance is GRANTED. (Dkt. 9.). Petitioner must file a motion for relief 

from judgment in state court within 90 days of entry of this order, that is, by 

August 22, 2016 and then Petitioner must immediately file a notice with this Court 

that includes proof of the state-court filing and a copy of the filing itself. If he fails 

4:15-cv-12264-TGB-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 06/10/16 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 464
6 

to timely notify the Court that he has sought state-court post-conviction relief, the 

Court will proceed to adjudicate the petition as it stands. Within 90 days after the 

conclusion of the state-court post-conviction proceedings, Petitioner may move to 

amend his habeas petition to add his new claims. Otherwise, Petitioner must 

inform the Court that he will proceed with the petition as is. To avoid 

administrative difficulties, the Court orders the Clerk of Court to close this case for 

statistical purposes only. Nothing in this order shall be considered a disposition of 

Petitioner's petition. See Thomas v. Stoddard, 89 F. Supp. 3d at 943-44. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 10, 2016 s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on June 10, 

2016, using the CM/ECF system; a copy of this Order was also mailed to the 

Saginaw Correctional Facility located at 9625 Pierce Rd., Freeland, Michigan 48623 

directed to Petitioner’s attention. 

 s/A. Chubb 

 Case Manager 

4:15-cv-12264-TGB-RSW Doc # 10 Filed 06/10/16 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 465