Davis v. Warren, 2:13-cv-15215

Petitioner Tarranisha Davis, a Michigan prisoner, was convicted in 2010 of second-degree murder and felony-firearm and sentenced to consecutive terms (22–40 years and 2 years).
Davis filed a pro se federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising claims about a witness invoking the Fifth Amendment, no hearing on that invocation, admission of a co-defendant’s letter, jury instructions, and sufficiency of the evidence.
Davis had a pending state-court motion for relief from judgment (filed in late December 2013) raising additional claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel.
The District Court found Davis had not exhausted available state remedies and that the state courts must be allowed to decide her claims first.
The court dismissed the federal petition without prejudice (no ruling on the merits), denied a certificate of appealability (COA), and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of state remedies	Davis contended her federal claims should be heard now	Respondent argued Davis had pending state post-conviction proceedings and had not fairly presented all claims to state courts	Court held Davis had not exhausted state remedies and dismissed the petition without prejudice
Whether to stay federal proceedings pending state review	Davis implicitly sought federal review now (petition filed while state motion pending)	Respondent argued dismissal is appropriate because state proceedings could resolve/moot federal claims	Court held a stay was unwarranted and dismissed rather than stayed
AEDPA statute-of-limitations concern	Davis’s filing date could be timely; petitioner dated federal petition Dec. 22, 2013	Respondent argued tolling applies while state petition pending; limitation period still available	Court held limitation period not a bar now (about 3 months remained), so dismissal without prejudice was appropriate rather than a stay
Certificate of appealability (COA) and IFP on appeal	Davis could argue procedural error	Respondent argued procedural dismissal forecloses COA and appeal in good faith	Court denied COA and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (reasonable jurists would not debate the procedural ruling)

O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838 (state prisoners must give state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims)
McMeans v. Brigano, 228 F.3d 674 (6th Cir.) (claims must be fairly presented to state courts)
Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789 (6th Cir.) (requiring presentation of legal and factual bases to state courts)
Koontz v. Glossa, 731 F.2d 365 (6th Cir.) (federal constitutional claims must be raised in state courts)
Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480 (6th Cir.) (issues must be presented to both state appellate courts)
Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155 (6th Cir.) (burden on petitioner to prove exhaustion)
Jimenez v. Quarterman, 555 U.S. 113 (on when conviction becomes final for AEDPA purposes)
Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (AEDPA filing deadline and finality rules)
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability when claims are denied on procedural grounds)