UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD MACRAE LAWSON,

Petitioner, 

v.

DEBRA SCUTT,

Respondent. 

/

Case Number: 09-CV-11946

Honorable Denise Page Hood

OPINION AND ORDER 

GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS

AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

Petitioner Richard MacRae Lawson, a Michigan state inmate currently incarcerated at the

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan, filed a pro se petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is incarcerated in violation of his

constitutional rights. (Dkt. # 1.) On March 21, 2006, following a jury trial in the Wayne

County, Michigan, Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of (1) felony murder, MICH. COMP.

LAWS 

§ 750.316, and (2) felony firearm, MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.227b. He was subsequently

sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony-murder conviction and the mandatory two-years

imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. Before the Court now is Petitioner’s “Motion

for Stay of the Proceedings” [dkt. # 2], requesting that this Court stay his habeas-corpus

proceedings until he has had an opportunity to comply with the exhaustion requirements of 28

U.S.C. § 2254.

In his motion, Petitioner claims that he has recently discovered issues that were not

presented to the state courts, regarding exculpatory evidence that was withheld from him,

2:09-cv-11946-DPH-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 06/22/09 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 86
1

Petitioner did not timely request counsel for his appeal of right; thus, a delayed

application was filed pursuant to Mich.Ct.R. 7.205(F)(3).

-2-

including, but not limited to, biological materials, latent prints, and DNA testing. Petitioner is

asking the Court’s permission to return to state court to exhaust those issues. For the reasons set

forth below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion and therefore stays the habeas-corpus

proceedings so that he may return to state court to exhaust those claims. 

I.

Following his convictions and sentences,1

 Petitioner, through counsel, filed a delayed

application for leave appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals, presenting the following

claims:

I. [Petitioner] was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the

assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings,

i.e., the preliminary examination, where the district judge

failed to secure a valid waiver before allowing [Petitioner]

to proceed in propria persona.

II. [Petitioner] was denied the effective assistance of counsel

where trial counsel failed to seek interlocutory review of

the circuit judge’s: (A) denial of dismissal on the basis of a

violation of the 14-day rule; (B) granting of the

prosecution’s motion for the 404(b) other act evidence; (C)

granting prosecution’s motion for admittance of

“admission” made by [Petitioner] when questioning a

witness at the preliminary examination; and (D) denial of

the motion to suppress statements taken in contravention of

[Petitioner’s] expressed assertion of his right to counsel.

III. [Petitioner] was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair

trial and due process of law under the Fourteenth

Amendment where the trial court admitted into evidence

unfairly prejudicial other act evidence relating to an armed

robbery in California as there was no conviction for this

alleged crime.

2:09-cv-11946-DPH-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 06/22/09 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 87
-3-

IV. [Petitioner] was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a trial

by jury comprised of a fair cross section of the community

where out of 62 venire members there [were] only five

minorities represented.

On August 30, 2007, the Michigan Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s delayed

application, thereby affirming his convictions and sentences. People v. Lawson, No. 276946

(Mich.Ct.App. Aug. 30, 2007).

Subsequently, Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal from that decision with

the Michigan Supreme Court, raising the same claims as raised in the Court of Appeals. The

Michigan Supreme Court denied the application on February 19, 2008. People v. Lawson, 480

Mich. 1074, 744 N.W.2d 147 (Mich. 2008). From the pleadings submitted, it appears that

Petitioner neither filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court nor a

post-conviction motion in state court. He filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus on

May 21, 2009, one day before the statue of limitations expired.

II.

The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies requires state prisoners to “fairly present”

their claims as federal-constitutional issues in the state courts before raising those claims in a

federal-habeas-corpus petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) and (c); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,

526 U.S. 838, 842, 119 S. Ct. 1728, 144 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1999); McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674,

681 (6th Cir. 2000). The exhaustion requirement is satisfied if a prisoner invokes one complete

round of the state’s established appellate review process, including a petition for discretionary

review to a state supreme court. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845. A prisoner “‘fairly presents’ his

claims to the state courts by citing a provision of the Constitution, federal decisions using

constitutional analysis, or state decisions employing constitutional analysis in similar fact

2:09-cv-11946-DPH-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 06/22/09 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 88
-4-

patterns.” Levine v. Torvik, 986 F.2d 1506, 1516 (6th Cir. 1993); see also Prather v. Rees, 822

F.2d 1418, 1420 (holding that “[o]rdinarily, the state courts must have had the opportunity to

pass on defendant’s claims of constitutional violations”). A Michigan prisoner must present

each ground to both Michigan appellate courts before seeking federal-habeas-corpus relief. See

Mohn v. Bock, 208 F. Supp. 2d 796, 800 (E.D. Mich. 2002). The petitioner bears the burden of

showing that state-court remedies have been exhausted. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir.

1994).

The Michigan Court Rules provide a process through which Petitioner may raise his

unexhausted claims. Petitioner can file a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Mich.Ct.R.

6.500 et seq., which allows the trial court to appoint counsel, seek a response from the

prosecutor, expand the record, permit oral argument and conduct an evidentiary hearing on

Petitioner’s claim. Petitioner may appeal the trial court’s disposition of his motion for relief

from judgment to the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. To obtain

relief, he will have to show cause for failing to raise his unexhausted claims on his appeal of

right to the Michigan Court of Appeals and resulting prejudice or a significant possibility of

innocence. See Mich.Ct.R. 6.508(D)(3). However, he would have to make a similar showing

here, if the Court concluded that there was no state remedy to exhaust. Gray v. Netherland, 518

U.S. 152, 161-62, 116 S. Ct. 2074, 135 L. Ed. 2d 457 (1996).

A federal district court has the authority to abate or dismiss a federal-habeas action

pending resolution of state post-conviction proceedings. Brewer v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 491, 493

(5th Cir. 1998). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has advised that it is preferable for a district

court to hold further proceedings on a habeas-corpus petition in abeyance pending exhaustion,

2:09-cv-11946-DPH-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 06/22/09 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 89
-5-

rather than dismissing the petition without prejudice. Griffin v. Rogers, 308 F.3d 647, 652, n.1

(6th Cir. 2002); see also Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 780-81 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding 

“eminently reasonable” district court’s holding dismissing unexhausted claims in habeas petition

and staying proceedings on the remaining claims pending exhaustion of state-court remedies).

Having considered the matter, the Court finds that it is appropriate to stay this case as

requested. A federal district court has discretion in “limited circumstances” to stay a habeas

action to allow a petitioner to present unexhausted claims to the state courts and then return to

federal court on a perfected petition. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277, 125 S. Ct. 1528,

161 L. Ed. 2d 440 (2005). For example, stay and abeyance may be appropriate when a habeas

petitioner could be precluded from seeking federal-habeas relief due to the application of the

one-year statute of limitations. Id. at 275-76. Stay and abeyance is only appropriate when a

district court determines that the petitioner has shown good cause for the failure to first exhaust

the claims in state courts, the petitioner’s unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless, and the

petitioner has not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Id. at 277.

In this case, Petitioner has shown the need for a stay. It appears from Petitioner’s

pleadings that he has new evidence regarding his claims and therefore those claims should be

addressed to, and considered by, the state courts in the first instance, so the state courts will have

an opportunity to decide whether those claims, with the new evidence obtained, have merit.

Additionally, the Court recognizes that the one-year limitations period applicable to this habeas

action poses a problem for Petitioner if this Court were to dismiss the petition to allow for

further exhaustion of state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

2:09-cv-11946-DPH-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 06/22/09 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 90
-6-

III.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that further proceedings in this case are stayed pending

exhaustion of state-court remedies. The case shall be stayed provided that (1) Petitioner presents

his unexhausted claims to the state court within sixty (60) days from the date of this order, and

(2) Petitioner returns to this Court to request that the stay be lifted within sixty (60) days of

exhausting state-court remedies. “If either condition of the stay is not met, the stay may later be

vacated nunc pro tunc as of the date the stay was entered, and the petition may be dismissed.” 

Palmer, 276 F.3d at 781 (internal quotation omitted).

To avoid administrative difficulties, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to 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.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: June 22, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon Richard Lawson,

Reg. No. 598802, G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, 3500 N. Elm Rd., Jackson, MI 49201

on June 22, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/William F. Lewis 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11946-DPH-MJH Doc # 5 Filed 06/22/09 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 91