IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CAINE PELZER, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-222

:

SUPERINTENDENT MAHALLY, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

November 9, 2016

Background

This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

was initiated by Caine Pelzer, while he was confined at the State Correctional

Institution, Dallas, Pennsylvania.1

 Service of the petition was previously ordered. 

 Presently pending is Petitioner’s unopposed motion requesting that this

proceeding be stayed and held in abeyance. See Doc. 16. 

Petitioner challenges the legality of his March 6, 2002 conviction on

multiple counts of theft, robbery, reckless endangering another person, and 

unlawful restraint following a jury trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne

1 Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Pine Grove State Correctional

Institution, Indiana, Pennsylvania.

1

Case 4:15-cv-00222-MWB Document 19 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 6
County, Pennsylvania. Pelzer was sentenced to a twenty-two (22) to forty-four

(44) year term of imprisonment on April 15, 2002. His pending action raises

multiple claims including assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel,

insufficient evidence, improperly enhanced sentence, violation of the Uniform

Criminal Extradition Act, and violation of his speedy trial rights.

Following service of the petition, Respondent filed a response arguing that

dismissal of Pelzer’s action was appropriate because it was both untimely and

because his claims were procedurally defaulted.

Discussion

Pelzer’s pending request for stay and abeyance maintains that following the

issuance of Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) he sought collateral

relief via an action filed on February 8, 2016 with the state trial court pursuant to

Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA).2

 His PCRA action included

claims “that are currently pending before this Honorable Court.” Doc. 16, ¶ 17. In

a letter dated October 23, 2016, Petitioner indicated that his PCRA action is still

2 See 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9541 et seq. One of the avenues for relief in the

Pennsylvania legal system is collateral relief under the PCRA, "which permits motions

for post-conviction collateral relief for allegations of error, including ineffective

assistance of counsel, unlawfully induced guilty pleas, improper obstruction of rights

to appeal by Commonwealth officials, and violation of constitutional provisions." 

Hankins v. Fulcomer, 941 F.2d 246, 251 (3d Cir. 1991).

2

Case 4:15-cv-00222-MWB Document 19 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 6
pending in state court. See Doc. 18. Petitioner requests that his federal habeas

corpus action be stayed pending disposition of his state court petition. As

previously noted, the motion is unopposed.

Title 28 United States Code Section 2254(b)(1) provides 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 shall not be granted unless the applicant has exhausted

the remedies available in the courts of the state, there is an absence of available

state corrective process; or there are existing circumstances which render the state

process ineffective. The exhaustion requirement is not a mere formality. It serves

the interests of comity between the federal and state systems, by allowing the state

an initial opportunity to determine and correct any violations of a prisoner’s

federal rights. 

The United States Supreme Court, noting that a total exhaustion rule "does

not unreasonably impair the prisoner's right to relief," has recognized that if a

habeas corpus petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims is

presented, then the entire petition must be dismissed. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S.

509, 522 (1982). However, “a petition containing unexhausted but procedurally

barred claims in addition to exhausted claims is not a mixed petition requiring

dismissal under Rose." Toulson v. Beyer, 987 F.2d 984, 987 (3d Cir. 1993); see

3

Case 4:15-cv-00222-MWB Document 19 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 6
also Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346, 351 (1989). 

 As discussed above, federal habeas corpus relief may not be granted on a

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

Crews v. Horn, 360 F. 3d 146 (3d Cir. 2004), a § 2254 petitioner filed a timely but

mixed (one containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims) federal habeas

corpus petition. Both Rhines and Crews addressed arguments that federal habeas

petitions should be held in abeyance while unexhausted claims were exhausted in

state court because those claims might be time barred upon returning to federal

court due to the time limitations imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Rhines

recognized that under such “limited circumstances” district 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 United States 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 initial federal petition must be

timely filed. Although there is a question as to whether Pelzer’s pending federal

petition is timely under the time frame established by the Antiterrorism and

4

Case 4:15-cv-00222-MWB Document 19 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 6
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, it cannot be determined at this juncture that

his action is clearly untimely. Petitioner has requested a stay because this pending

§ 2254 action includes claims that he has raised via a PCRA which is still before

the state trial court.

As in Crews, Pelzer 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. Recognizing that Pelzer may not have any additional time in which to

file a new federal habeas petition after disposition of his pending state court

petition if not granted a stay, Crews counsels in favor of a stay of litigation in this

case while Petitioner completes state review of his pending federal claims. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s unopposed request for a stay will be granted. 

However, in order to keep this matter moving forward, within thirty (30)

days of disposition of Petitioner’s state court PCRA proceedings regarding his

pending federal claims, he will be required to file a written status report with this

Court which includes a copy of the relevant state court disposition. Failure to

timely file the required written status report may be deemed a failure to prosecute.

Upon demonstration by Petitioner that his relevant state court proceedings

have concluded, the stay issued in this matter will be lifted. Until such time, this

5

Case 4:15-cv-00222-MWB Document 19 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 6
matter will be marked closed for administrative purposes. An appropriate Order

will enter.3

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

3

 Petitioner is advised that the issuance of this Memorandum and Order does

not preclude a future finding by this Court that his instant § 2254 action is time barred.

6

Case 4:15-cv-00222-MWB Document 19 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 6