Moses v. Collado, 1:19-cv-01770

Petitioner Sharife Moses, pro se, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asserting ineffective-assistance claims and stated he was "in the process" of pursuing two additional ineffective-assistance claims in state court via N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 440.10.
Moses asked the federal court to stay the habeas proceedings so he could exhaust those state-court claims; Respondent opposed a stay, arguing Moses had not shown the required "good cause" under Rhines v. Weber.
Moses offered only a layperson-based explanation (it took him years to understand criminal law and develop the issues) for his delay in exhausting the claims.
Moses did file a § 440.10 motion, but it did not mirror the two unexhausted claims he identified in his federal petition: the § 440.10 motion raised one of the originally-claimed failures and a different claim (failure to present facts at a Wade hearing), leaving at least one claim unexhausted.
The state trial court denied the § 440.10 motion but granted Moses leave to appeal to the Appellate Division; Respondent thereafter told the federal court she would not oppose a stay, but the Magistrate Judge found Rhines still controlled.
The court declined to stay the federal proceeding, ordered Respondent to file an opposition and state-court record by June 30, 2020, allowed Moses a reply by August 31, 2020, and permitted reasonable COVID-related extensions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a stay to permit exhaustion is appropriate under Rhines (good-cause requirement)	Moses sought a stay to exhaust via § 440.10, explaining delay by his layperson status and need to develop issues	Respondent argued Moses showed no good cause; ignorance of law insufficient; no diligent effort to exhaust	Stay denied — Moses did not demonstrate the requisite good cause under Rhines
Whether Moses actually exhausted the federal claims he identified	Moses asserted two unexhausted IAC claims in the petition (jury charge re: affirmative defense to felony murder; failure to object to summation)	Respondent noted the § 440.10 motion raised only the jury-charge claim and a different Wade-hearing claim, leaving at least one federal claim unexhausted or unpresented	Court found inconsistency; at least one claimed federal issue remained unexhausted, undermining stay request
Whether state-court leave to appeal and Respondent’s later non-opposition justify a stay despite Rhines	Moses relied on the Appellate Division leave to appeal and alleged potential merit	Respondent later said she would not oppose a stay given leave to appeal	Court held that Rhines requires a showing of diligence/good cause regardless of Respondent’s changed position; therefore no stay was granted and the case proceeded on a briefing schedule

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay-and-abeyance is appropriate only where the petitioner shows good cause for failing to exhaust, and the district court must consider AEDPA concerns)