UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

EDWIN DANTREL MERIDY,

Petitioner, 

v.

KENNETH ROMANOWSKI,

Respondent. 

/

Case Number: 2:08-CV-15249

HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO

HOLD HABEAS PETITION IN ABEYANCE AND

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

Petitioner Edwin Daniel Meridy filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, who is a state inmate currently incarcerated at the

Mound Correctional Facility in Detroit, Michigan, challenges his convictions for seconddegree murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and felony firearm. Now before the court

is Petitioner’s “Motion to Hold in Abeyance Habeas Petition and Administratively

Closing Case.” For the reasons stated, the Court will grant the motion and

administratively close the matter. 

I.

Following a jury trial in Berrien County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted as

set forth above. He was sentenced to 35 to 75 years in prison for the second-degree

murder conviction, 3 to 10 years for the felon in possession conviction, and 2 years for

2:08-cv-15249-DPH-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 03/04/11 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 2052
2

the felony-firearm conviction. 

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

following claims: (i) insufficient evidence; (ii) verdict against the great weight of the

evidence; (iii) trial court errors denied Petitioner a fair trial; (iv) prosecutorial

misconduct; (v) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (vi) newly discovered evidence

warrants a new trial. Petitioner presented a pro per supplemental brief raising these

additional claims: (i) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; (ii)

prosecutorial misconduct; (iii) lack of credible evidence to support the testimony of Mr.

Bowman or Mr. Hall; (iv) inaccurate information relied on in sentencing; and (v) Blakely

violation. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s convictions. People v.

Meridy, No. 262371 (Mich. Ct. App. May 15, 2007).

Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal in the Michigan Supreme Court. 

He raised the same claims raised in the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Michigan

Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. People v. Meridy, 481 Mich. 876 (Mich. May 27,

2008).

Petitioner then filed a habeas corpus petition. He raises these claims:

I. Failure of the state courts to vacate the defendant’s convictions based upon

ineffective assistance of counsel and rampant prosecutorial misconduct

failed to follow various established Supreme Court precedents in Strickland,

Brecht, Chapman and other decisions and was an unreasonable application

of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.

II. The trial judge unreasonably denied the defendant due process of law by

failing to provide compulsory process for his most critical witness at a

hearing for new trial that would have established grave doubt as to whether

2:08-cv-15249-DPH-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 03/04/11 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 2053
3

the jury would have convicted the defendant for murder had it known of the

testimony of Porter and Nelums and the recanted testimony of Bridgman.

Now before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance Habeas Petition

and Administratively Closing Case. 

II.

Petitioner has filed a motion to hold the habeas petition in abeyance so that he can

return to the state courts to raise additional claims which have not been exhausted with

the state courts.

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). Petitioner states that, while all of the claims presented in his habeas corpus

petition have been exhausted, he would like the petition stayed while he returns to state

court to exhaust five additional claims in state court. A federal court may stay a federal

habeas petition and hold further proceedings in abeyance pending resolution of state court

post-conviction proceedings if outright dismissal of a habeas petition would jeopardize

the timeliness of a future petition, there is good cause for the petitioner’s failure to

exhaust those claims, the unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless,” and “there is no

indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Rhines v.

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

In this case, the outright dismissal of the petition, even without prejudice, may

preclude future consideration of Petitioner’s claims in this Court due to the expiration of

2:08-cv-15249-DPH-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 03/04/11 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 2054
4

the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)(1). Staying a habeas corpus

proceeding is appropriate where, as here, the original petition was timely filed, but a

second, exhausted habeas petition may be time barred by the AEDPA's statute of

limitations. See Hargrove v. Brigano, 300 F.3d 717, 720-21 (6th Cir. 2002). The Court

finds that outright dismissal of the petition would jeopardize the timeliness of any future

habeas petition. 

Petitioner states that his unexhausted claims were not presented in state court

because they are newly discovered. The Court finds that Petitioner has asserted good

cause for failing previously to present these claims. In addition, the Court finds that these

claims are not “plainly meritless” and that Petitioner has not engaged in intentionally

dilatory tactics. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 277-78. Therefore, the Court stays further

proceedings in this matter pending exhaustion of the unexhausted claims. 

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 his state court remedies, the Court imposes upon Petitioner time

limits within which he must proceed. See Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir.

2002). Petitioner must present his claims in state court within sixty days from the date of

this Order. See id. Further, 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

2:08-cv-15249-DPH-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 03/04/11 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 2055
5

petition may be dismissed.” Palmer, 276 F.3d at 781 (internal quotation omitted). 

III.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion to Hold in Abeyance

Habeas Petition and Administratively Closing Case” [dkt. #12] is GRANTED. Petitioner

shall file a motion to lift the stay and an amended petition in this Court within sixty days

after the conclusion of the state court proceedings. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

and Motion for Discovery” [dkt. # 11] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to avoid administrative difficulties, the Clerk

of Court 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. Upon receipt of a

motion to lift the stay following exhaustion of state remedies, the Court may order the

Clerk to reopen this case for statistical purposes. 

s/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 4, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of record on

this date, March 4, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Relief Case Manager, (313) 234-5165

2:08-cv-15249-DPH-RSW Doc # 13 Filed 03/04/11 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 2056