WELCH v. DAVIS
2:23-cv-23301
D.N.J.Apr 30, 2025Background
- Nicholas Welch filed an Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking federal habeas relief after being denied in state post-conviction relief proceedings.
- Welch initially submitted a protective habeas petition, requesting a stay to exhaust additional claims through a second round of state post-conviction relief (PCR).
- The Court previously denied Welch’s informal request for a stay due to procedural deficiencies but allowed re-filing with proper briefing in light of Rhines v. Weber.
- Welch subsequently filed an Amended Petition and a formal motion to stay, detailing three points being pursued in his second PCR.
- The claims involve underlying constitutional issues, not ineffective assistance of PCR counsel alone, which typically are not cognizable under federal habeas review.
- The Court considers whether to grant a stay while these additional claims are exhausted in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Welch's Argument | Davis's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should the Court stay the federal habeas petition pending exhaustion of state post-conviction claims? | Requests a stay to allow exhaustion of potentially meritorious claims raised in a second PCR. | (Not specified in the record, typical opposition would be against delay or potential procedural default.) | Court grants the stay, finding good cause under Rhines v. Weber. |
| Are ineffective assistance of PCR counsel claims cognizable in federal habeas? | Argues underlying claims are due to alleged ineffective PCR counsel. | Ineffective PCR counsel not a federal habeas ground under § 2254(i) and relevant caselaw. | Court finds the petition does not rely solely on PCR counsel ineffectiveness for federal relief. |
| Has Petitioner met the Rhines requirements for a stay? | Asserts good cause, merit, and no intentional delay. | (Defense argument not detailed; would typically contest good cause or merit.) | Court finds all Rhines criteria satisfied. |
| Should the federal petition be administratively closed during the state PCR process? | Seeks to keep the petition alive during state court proceedings. | (Not specified.) | Court administratively terminates the matter but allows reopening within 45 days after state case ends. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (granting district courts authority to stay mixed habeas petitions where certain criteria are met)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (holding ineffectiveness of PCR counsel is not a cognizable ground for federal habeas relief)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (noting exception to Coleman for cause where initial state PCR counsel’s ineffectiveness causes procedural default of trial IAC claims)