IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE 


MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


ROBERT HAVILAND, 

Petit r 

v. CIVIL NO. 3:CV-15-1838 

Fft[O 

SUPERINTENDENT CAM RON, y) Q0 '\ \"...-- "'""'ci'; 

Res 

MEMORANDUM 

Background 

Robert Haviland, an inmate presently confined at the State 

Correctional Inst ution, Houtzdale, Penns a (SCIHoutzdale), filed this Q£Q se petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Named as Resp is SCIHoutzdale Superintenden Cameron. The required filing fee has 

been paid. 

According to the Petition, Haviland entered a guilty 

ea to charges of possession with intent to deliver a 

ontrolled substance, de_ ry of a contro 1 substance, and 

driving under the inf uence on February 2, o 2 the 

Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas. Petitioner was 

sente~ced to a three r, nine month to ten year, six month 

t rm of imprisonment on March 26, 2012. The Petition 

indicates that Havi 's irect appeal was nied the 

The Petit on s dated September 8, o 5 and will be 

deemed filed as of said date. 

1 

Case 3:15-cv-01838-RPC-JVW Document 4 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 6
Pennsylvar. a Superior Court on November 30, 2 012. See Doc. 1, 

'11 12. 

Thereafter, Haviland stat es that sought relief pursuant 

to Pennsy~vania' s Post Conviction Rel ief Act (PCRA). 2 

Petitioner ac k owledges that his ~~ial PCRA petition was 

de n i e d on Marc h 1S, 20 13. See i d. at '11 11. However, 

petitioner stat e that he has fil ed a second PCRA petition 

whi ch is presently pending b efore ~~e Schuylki l l County Court 

of Common Pl e as. See id. 

Haviland's pending action con tends tha t he is entitled 

to federa l habeas corpus relief on ~re basis that: (1) his 

trial counsel provided ineffec tive assistance by fai ling to 

cha l l enge t~e length of his sentence for driving under the 

in f l u ence ; (2) tria l counsel was de fi cient for failure to 

purs u e a n ntr apmen ~ defense; ar.~ (3) PCRA counse l was 

ineffective f or nor pursuing a cha~lenge to the driving under 

the influence sentence. Petitioner acknowledges that all 

three argument were included in ~;:s pending second PCRA 

act ion. See i d. at '11 13. 

2 See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9541 et~. One of the 

avenues for relief in the Pennsylvania legal system is collateral 

re l ie f under the PCRA, "which permits motions for post-conviction 

co llateral relief for allegations of error, including ineffective 

assistance of counsel , unlawfully induced guilty pleas, improper 

obst ruct ion of r ghts to appea 1 by Commonweal t h officia 1 s, and 

vio lation o f const i tutiona l provisions." Hankins v . fulcomer, 94 1 

L2d 246, 251 (3d Cir. 1 991). 

2 

Case 3:15-cv-01838-RPC-JVW Document 4 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 6
ncorporated within the Pe ition, is Haviland's request 

that this matter be held in abe ing disposition of his 

ding second PCRA petition "that has not been addressed yet." 

. at ~ 13. Petitioner argues that ing his request for "a 

stay and abeyance" will allow for disposition of his second PCRA 

action which was only recently fi ed on September 8, 2015. 

at D. 16. 

As previously noted, Petit oner has filed a request r 

stay abeyance of proceed s . land's pending habeas 

Petition and incorporated request for stay maintain that has 

filed a timely § 2254 petition and t t his pending cIa have 

also been raised in his S ember 2015 second PCRA action which 

is presently pending before the S kill County Court of Common 

Peas. Petitioner requests that this matter be stayed until such 

t as he has exhausted his avai able state court remedies with 

re ct to those unexhausted c a 

itle 28 United States Code Section 2254(b) (1) ides 

that an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf 

of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court 

sha 1 not be granted unless he applicant has exhausted the 

reme es available in the courts of the State; or there is an 

absence of available state corrective process; or there are 

xisting circumstances ch nder the state process 

nef ective. The exhaust on requirement is not a mere formality. 

Case 3:15-cv-01838-RPC-JVW Document 4 Filed 10/27/15 Page 3 of 6
It serves the interests of comity en the federal ana state 

systems, by allowing the state an "~ tial ity to 

determine a~d correct any violations of a soner's feoeral 

r'ghts. 

The U~ited States Supreme Court, not that a total 

exhaustion rule "does not unreaso~ably ir the prisoner's 

right to relief," has recog~ized that if h as corpus ition 

which co~tai~s unexhaust laims is presonted, then the entire 

petition must be dismissed. 455 u.S. 509, 522 

(1982) . However, "a petition co~taini~g u~exhaus ed but 

procedurally barred claims in addition to exhausted claims is not 

a mixed petition requiring oismissal under " 

987 F.2d 984, 987 (3d Cir. 1993); 

489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989). 

As discussed above, federal habeas corpus relief may not 

be granted on a petition consisting of austed la 

However, in both Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) and 

360 F. 3d 146 (3d Cir. 2004), a § 2254 tioner filed 

a timely but mixed (o~e containi~g both austed a~d usted 

claims feoeral habeas corpus petition. Both and 

addressed arg~ments that federa habeas peti~ions shou d be held 

in abeya~ce while unexhausted claims were exhausted state 

court because those claims might be t barred upon return to 

federal court due to the time limitations sed 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b) (1). The United States Supreme Court in 

recognized that under such "limi ed circumstances" district 

4 


Case 3:15-cv-01838-RPC-JVW Document 4 Filed 10/27/15 Page 4 of 6
courts have discretion to stay a mixed § 2254 federal habeas 

corpus petition so that the petitioner can pursue review of his 

unexhausted claims in state court. Rhines, 544 u.s. at 277. The 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Crews similarly 

recognized that in order to avoid an unfair result, "when an 

outright dismissal could jeopardize the timeliness of a 

collateral attack, a stay is the only appropriate course of 

action." Crews, 360 F.3d at p. 154 (internal citations omitted) 

Rhines and Crews both contemplate that the federal 

petition must be timely filed. In the present case, there is no 

clear indication that Haviland's pending federal petition is 

untimely under the time frame established by the Antiterrorism 

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Petitioner has 

requested a stay because his pending § 2254 action consists of 

claims that he is also asserting via a PCRA petition which is 

presently under consideration in Pennsylvania state court. 

As in Crews, Haviland should not face the prospect of 

forfeiting federal court review of issues. In this regard, there 

is no indication that Petitioner is seeking to defer adjudication 

of his claims or to defeat the interests of finality of state 

court jUdgments. Accepting Haviland's contention that he would 

only have a brief period of time in which to file a new federal 

habeas petition after completion of the state review process if 

not granted a stay, the Petitioner's pro se status, and out of an 

abundance of caution, Crews counsels in favor of a stay of 

litigation in this case while Haviland exhausts the state review 

5 


Case 3:15-cv-01838-RPC-JVW Document 4 Filed 10/27/15 Page 5 of 6
p~ocess on h~s pend ng unexhausted fede~al cla~ms. Accord~ngly, 

Petitione~'s request for a stay will be g~anteQ. 

However, n orde~ to keep this matter moving forwa~d, 

within thi~ty (30) days of the termination of Petitione~'s 

ongoing state cou~t PCRA p~oceed~ngs ~egarding h spending 

ederal claims, he will be required to file a written status 

rt with the Court detailing the conclusion of his state cou~t 

exhaustion efforts and ncluding a copy o~ the relevant Superior 

and/or Supreme Court's spositions. Failure to t ly file the 

required written status report may be deemed a failure to 

prosecute. 

demonstration by Petitioner that his state court 

proceedings have concluded, the stay issued in this ~atter will 

be lifted, until such t , this matter will be ~arked closed for 

a nistrative purposes. An appropriate Order will enter. 

United States District J' 

1:1{ 

DAT D: OCTOBER J, 1, 2015 

6 


Case 3:15-cv-01838-RPC-JVW Document 4 Filed 10/27/15 Page 6 of 6