1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR BRIDGES,

Petitioner, Civil No. 2:09-CV-12139

HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

BLAINE LAFLER,

Respondent,

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER HOLDING IN ABEYANCE THE PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING THE CASE

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan on March 22, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Arthur Bridges, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Cotton Correctional Facility in

Jackson, Michigan, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. In his application, filed pro se, petitioner challenges his conviction for delivery of

less than 50 grams of cocaine, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.7401(2)(a)(iv), and being a

fourth habitual offender, id. § 769.12. Petitioner has now filed a motion to stay the

habeas corpus proceedings and hold the petition in abeyance to permit him to return to the

state courts to present additional claims that have not been exhausted with the state

courts. For the reasons stated below, the Court holds the petition in abeyance and stays
1

 Under the prison mailbox rule, this Court assumes that ptitioner filed his habeas petition on May 29,

2009, the date that it was signed and dated. See Neal v. Bock, 137 F. Supp. 2d 879, 882, fn. 1 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

2

the proceedings under the terms outlined in this opinion to permit petitioner to return to

the state courts to exhaust his additional claims, failing which the petition will be

dismissed without prejudice. The Court will also administratively close the case.

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted of the above offenses following a jury trial in the

Saginaw County Circuit Court. Petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. People v.

Bridges, No. 277758 (Mich. Ct. App. November 13, 2008); lv. den. 483 Mich. 978, 764

N.W.2d 261 (2009). 

On May 29, 2009, petitioner filed this application for writ of habeas corpus, in

which he seeks habeas relief on the three claims that he raised in the Michigan appellate

courts on his direct appeal.1

 

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

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

the state courts.

II. Discussion

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

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

491, 493 (5th Cir. 1998). However, “to stay federal proceedings and hold a habeas

petition in abeyance pending resolution of state court proceedings, there must be
3

exceptional or unusual circumstances.” Sitto v. Bock, 207 F. Supp. 2d 668, 676 (E.D.

Mich. 2002); Hudson v. Martin, 68 F. Supp. 2d 798, 800 (E.D. Mich. 1999). A federal

district court is authorized to stay fully exhausted federal habeas petitions pending the

exhaustion of other claims in the state courts. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 575

(9th Cir. 2000); see also Taylor v. Prelesnik, No. 06-13795, 2008 WL 3853300, * 2 (E.D.

Mich. August 18, 2008); Tran v. Bell, 145 F. Supp. 2d 939, 941-42 (W.D. Tenn. 2001);

Hill v. Mitchell, 30 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1000 (S.D. Ohio 1998). 

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

returns to the state courts to exhaust his additional claims. The outright dismissal of the

petition, albeit without prejudice, might result in preclusion of consideration of the

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 circumstance calling for abating a habeas petition 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). 

The U.S. Supreme Court suggested that a habeas petitioner who is concerned about

the possible effects of his state post-conviction filings on the AEDPA’s statute of

limitations could file a “protective” petition in federal court and then ask for the petition

to be held in abeyance pending the exhaustion of state post-conviction remedies. See Pace

v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416, 125 S. Ct. 1807, 1813 (2005)(citing Rhines v. Weber,
4

544 U.S. 269, 278, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1531 (2005)). A federal court may stay a federal

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

post-conviction proceedings, if there is good cause for failure to exhaust and the

unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278; 125 S. Ct. at

1535. 

Petitioner’s claims do not appear to be “plainly meritless.” See Wagner v. Smith,

581 F.3d 410, 419 (6th Cir. 2009). Further, petitioner may assert that he did not

previously raise these claims in the state courts due to the ineffective assistance of

appellate counsel. Id., at 419, nn.4 & 5. Finally, it does not appear that petitioner has

engaged in “intentionally dilatory tactics.”

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.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278; 125 S. Ct. at 1535. 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 by

filing a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the state trial 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 petition may be dismissed.” Palmer, 276 F. 3d at 781 (internal
5

quotation omitted).

Exhausting state court remedies in this case requires the filing of a post-conviction

motion for relief from judgment under Michigan Court Rule 6.500, et. seq. See Wagner,

581 F.3d at 419; see also Mikko v. Davis, 342 F. Supp. 2d 643, 646 (E.D. Mich. 2004). 

Petitioner could exhaust these claims by filing a post-conviction motion for relief from

judgment with the Saginaw County Circuit Court under Michigan Court Rule 6.502. A

trial court is authorized to appoint counsel for petitioner, seek a response from the

prosecutor, expand the record, permit oral argument, and hold an evidentiary hearing.

Mich. Ct. R. 6.505-6.507, 6.508(B)-(C). Denial of a motion for relief from judgment is

reviewable by the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court upon the

filing of an application for leave to appeal. Mich. Ct. R. 6.509, 7.203, 7.302; see also

Nasr v. Stegall, 978 F. Supp. 714, 717 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Petitioner, in fact, is required

to appeal the denial of his post-conviction motion to the Michigan Court of Appeals and

the Michigan Supreme Court in order to properly exhaust any claims that he would raise

in his post-conviction motion. See e.g. Mohn v. Bock, 208 F. Supp. 2d 796, 800 (E.D.

Mich. 2002).

III. ORDER

It is ORDERED that petitioner may file a motion for relief from judgment with

the state court within sixty (60) days of receipt of this Court’s order. If petitioner fails

to file a motion for relief from judgment with the state courts by that date, the Court will

dismiss his petition without prejudice.
6

If petitioner files a motion for relief from judgment, he shall notify this Court that

such motion papers have been filed in state court. The case will then be held in abeyance

pending the petitioner’s exhaustion of the claims. Petitioner shall re-file a habeas petition

using the same caption and case number within sixty (60) days after the conclusion of

the state court post-conviction proceedings. Petitioner is free at that time to file an

amended habeas petition which contains newly exhausted claims.

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. See Sitto v.

Bock, 207 F. Supp. 2d at 677. 

It is further ORDERED that upon receipt of a motion to reinstate the habeas

petition following exhaustion of state remedies, the Court may order the Clerk to reopen

this case for statistical purposes.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Copies To:

Arthur Bridges, #154318

G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility

3500 N. Elm Road

Jackson, MI 49201

Debra Gagliardi, Esq.