Wallace v. Tanner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOEL BRANDON WALLACE,
Petitioner, 	Case No. 2:24-cv-12426
v. 	Honorable Susan K. DeClercq
United States District Judge
JEFF TANNER,
Respondent.
______________________________________/
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE RESPONDENT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS (ECF No. 6), AND GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS (ECF No. 9)
Joel 	Brandon 	Wallace, 	a 	state 	prisoner 	incarcerated 	at 	the 	Macomb
Correctional Facility, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, challenging his state court conviction on three grounds. ECF No. 1.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, asserting that Petitioner did not
exhaust his state court remedies with respect to his third claim. ECF No. 6 at
PageID.69–70. Respondent acknowledged that if this Court did not dismiss the
petition, a stay of proceedings might also be an appropriate remedy. Id. PageID.71.
This Court ordered Petitioner to respond to the motion and indicate whether
he wished to delete his unexhausted claim or return to state court to exhaust his third
habeas claim. ECF No. 7. In response, Petitioner filed a motion to stay proceedings,
Case 2:24-cv-12426-SKD-EAS ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
indicating his desire to return to state court. ECF No. 9. Petitioner asserts that a stay
of proceedings and not dismissal is appropriate due to concerns presented by the
statute of limitations. Id. PageID.3004. Petitioner also noted that Respondent would
not be prejudiced by a stay because he will remain incarcerated while he exhausts
his claim. Id.
A federal district court has discretion to stay a petition 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, 276 (2005). Stay and
abeyance is available only in “limited circumstances” such as when the one-year
statute of limitations poses a concern, when the petitioner demonstrates “good
cause” for the failure to exhaust state remedies before proceeding in federal court,
the petitioner has not engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics, and the
unexhausted claims are not “plainly meritless.” Id. at 277.
Petitioner has demonstrated entitlement to a stay. He filed his present petition
after about eight months ran on the one-year statute of limitations, presenting a
timeliness concern if the petition were dismissed instead of stayed. As for “good
cause,” Petitioner asserts that the prosecutor’s conduct at a post-trial evidentiary
hearing revealed to him for the first time that false testimony and evidence was
presented at trial. ECF No. 7-21 at PageID.2795. This claim is not “plainly
Case 2:24-cv-12426-SKD-EAS ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
meritless” in the sense that it at least presents a cognizable issue on federal habeas
review. Finally, there is no indication that Petitioner is engaged in dilatory tactics as
he attempted to raise this issue for the first time in the Michigan Supreme Court –
the first opportunity he had to file a pro se pleading. Thus, this Court will grant
Petitioner’s motion to stay, ECF No. 9, deny without prejudice Respondent’s motion
to dismiss, ECF No. 6, and hold the petition in abeyance.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No.
6, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Further, it is ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to stay, ECF No. 9, is
GRANTED, and his case will be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending Petitioner’s
exhaustion of his state court remedies. To that end, Petitioner must file his motion
for relief from judgment in state court on or before Wednesday, January 7, 2026.
He must then immediately file a notice with this Court that includes proof of the
state-court filing and a copy of the filing itself. If his motion for relief from judgment
is denied, Petitioner must then pursue timely appeal through both the Michigan
Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court. If relief is denied, Petitioner must
move to reopen this case within 60 days after the conclusion of state post-
conviction proceedings. See, e.g., Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 411 (6th Cir.
2009) (discussing similar procedure). If Petitioner fails to comply with any of these
Case 2:24-cv-12426-SKD-EAS ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
conditions, the Court may dismiss his petition and/or rule only on his exhausted
claims. See Calhoun v. Bergh, 769 F.3d 409, 411 (6th Cir. 2014).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2025 	/s/Susan K. DeClercq
SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-12426-SKD-EAS ECF No. 10, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 4