- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

CORRINE BAKER, 

Petitioner, Civil No. 2:15-CV-11629 

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

SHAWN BREWER, 

Respondent. 

____________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE 

THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE 

Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, through her counsel David S. Steingold, challenging her 

conviction for second-degree murder, M.C.L.A. § 750.317; and seconddegree child abuse, M.C.L.A. § 750.136(b)(3). Petitioner has now filed a 

motion to hold the petition in abeyance during the pendency of her request 

for a review of her criminal conviction by the Michigan Attorney General 

Office’s Conviction Integrity Unit. (CIU). The Court holds the petition in 

abeyance and stays the proceedings under the terms outlined in this 

opinion during the pendency of the review of petitioner’s case by the CIU. 

The Court administratively closes the case. 
- 2 - 

A federal district court is authorized to stay fully exhausted federal 

habeas petitions pending the exhaustion of other claims in the state courts. 

See Bowling v. Haeberline, 246 F. 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”); see also Thomas v. Stoddard, 89 F. Supp. 3d 937, 943 

(E.D. Mich. 2015). 

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

while she seeks review of her conviction by the Conviction Integrity Unit. 

The outright dismissal of the petition, even if it is without prejudice, might 

bar review of petitioner’s claims in this Court due to the expiration of the 

one year statute of limitations contained in the Antiterrorism and Effective 

Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). A common 

reason for holding a habeas petition in abeyance arises when the original 

petition was timely filed, but a second, exhausted habeas petition would be 

time barred by the AEDPA’s statute of limitations. See Hargrove v. Brigano, 

300 F.3d 717, 720-21 (6th Cir. 2002). 

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

appropriate pending exhaustion, the district court “should place reasonable 
- 3 - 

time limits on a petitioner’s trip to state court and back.” Rhines v. Weber, 

544 U.S. 269, 278 (2005). 

The Court holds the petition in abeyance to allow petitioner to seek 

review of her conviction by the Attorney General Office’s Conviction 

Integrity Unit. This tolling is conditioned upon petitioner returning to federal 

court within thirty days of the Conviction Integrity Unit issuing an adverse 

decision. Hargrove, 300 F.3d at 721.

III. ORDER 

IT IS ORDERED that: 

(1) The proceedings are STAYED and the Court holds the 

habeas petition in abeyance. Petitioner shall move to reopen 

her habeas case within 30 days of any adverse decision by 

the Conviction Integrity Unit. Failure to do so will result in the 

Court lifting the stay and adjudicating the merits of the claims 

raised in petitioner’s original and amended habeas petitions. 

(2) To avoid administrative difficulties, the Clerk of Court shall 

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 Thomas, 89 F. 

Supp. 3d at 943-944. 

(3) Upon receipt of a motion to reinstate the habeas petition 

following exhaustion of state remedies, the Court will order the 

Clerk to reopen this case for statistical purposes. 

Dated: February 6, 2020 

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE