Pulley v. Warden, Madison Correctional Institution

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
CHARLES FRANCIS PULLEY, III,
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 3:25-cv-00144
- vs - 	District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN, Madison
Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This habeas corpus case was brought pro se by Petitioner Charles Pulley to obtain relief
from his conviction in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas of murder and related
offenses (Petition, ECF No. 1). 	Upon filing the case was randomly assigned to District Judge
Walter H. Rice and Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers. Judge Deavers then ordered the
Respondent to answer the Petition and provided that Petitioner’s reply/traverse would be due
twenty-one days after the Return was filed (Order, ECF No. 4).
Respondent filed the Return on September 12, 2025 (ECF No. 8) making the Reply due
October 6, 2025,1 However, on September 25, 2025, Petitioner filed both a Motion to Extend the
Reply Date to December 12, 2025 (ECF No. 9) and a Motion for Stay (ECF No. 10). By notation
orders Judge Rice granted both motions without opinion.
1 21 days plus three days because Petitioner was served by mail. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6.
Case: 3:25-cv-00144-WHR-MRM Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Petitioner has not filed the reply. Instead, on November 28, 2025, he moved to continue
the order staying the Habeas Proceedings until the final decision of the new issues petitioner has
submitted in a Motion for leave to file for a New Trial filed on 7/15/2025 in the common pleas
court of Montgomery County Ohio.” 	(ECF No. 11, PageID 1171). 	That Motion is DENIED
because it is unsigned. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. On February 2, 2026, the Clerk docketed a new
Motion for Stay (ECF No. 12) which is also DENIED because it is unsigned.
Rather than merely ordering Petitioner to sign his motions, the undersigned believes a more
thorough analysis of a possible stay is required. 	District courts have authority to grant stays in
habeas corpus cases to permit exhaustion of state court remedies in consideration of the AEDPA’s
preference for state court initial resolution of claims. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005).
However, in recognizing that authority, the Supreme Court held:
[S]tay 	and 	abeyance 	should 	be 	available 	only 	in 	limited
circumstances. 	Because 	granting 	a 	stay 	effectively 	excuses 	a
petitioner's failure to present his claims first to the state courts, stay
and abeyance is only appropriate when the district court determines
there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims
first in state court. Moreover, even if a petitioner had good cause for
that failure, the district court would abuse its discretion if it were to
grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.
Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) ("An application for a writ of habeas
corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding the failure of
the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the
State"). . . .
On the other hand, it likely would be an abuse of discretion for a
district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition if the
petitioner had good cause for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted
claims are potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the
petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.
Id. at 277-278. “Staying a federal habeas petition frustrates AEDPA’s objective of encouraging
finality by allowing a petitioner to delay the resolution of federal proceedings. Id. It also directed
district courts to place reasonable time limits on the petitioner’s trip to state court and back. The
Case: 3:25-cv-00144-WHR-MRM Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Court thus endorsed the approach this Court had been following under Palmer v. Carlton, 276 F.3d
377 (6th Cir. 2002), and Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d 679, 683 (6th Cir. 2002).
If Petitioner desires a continued stay in this case, he must renew his motion for stay not
later than March 2, 2026, and justify it under the Rhines standard. Any renewed motion for stay
must be signed and accompanied by a copy of Petitioner’s pending Motion for New Trial.
The Court sua sponte extends Petitioner’s date to file a reply to the same date, March 2,
2026. The reply must respond to the Warden’s assertion that the Petition is barred by the statute
of limitations.
Motions to stay are non-dispositive and therefore within the decisional authority of a
Magistrate Judge in the first instance, subject to appeal to the assigned District Judge.
February 5, 2026.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00144-WHR-MRM Doc #: 14 Filed: 02/05/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>