Winstanley v. Stewart
2:15-cv-11475
E.D. Mich.Feb 8, 2016Background
- Petitioner Tashia Winstanley is a Michigan prisoner who pled guilty and was convicted in Grand Traverse Circuit Court; conviction affirmed on appeal and Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on April 28, 2014.
- Winstanley filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 23, 2015 asserting claims exhausted in state court; she later sought a stay to return to state court to exhaust additional ineffective-assistance and sentencing claims.
- She seeks to raise (1) a restitution claim based on People v. McKinley arguing restitution was assessed for more victims than she was convicted of, and (2) a Lockridge-based sentencing guidelines challenge claiming certain offense variables (OV 9, OV 10, OV 14) were improperly scored.
- The Court found Rhines stay factors informative even though the federal petition currently contains only exhausted claims, focusing on comity, judicial economy, and the apparent merit of the proposed unexhausted claims.
- The Court concluded the Lockridge claim was not plainly meritless, Lockridge was decided after Winstanley filed her petition, and the state should have the opportunity to decide the claim first; the restitution claim may be unsuitable for federal habeas relief.
- The Court granted a stay and abeyance: Winstanley must file a state motion for relief from judgment within 90 days and return to federal court within 90 days after exhausting state remedies; the Clerk is ordered to administratively close the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay a fully exhausted federal habeas petition so petitioner can exhaust new state claims | Winstanley: stay is warranted to return to state court to exhaust Lockridge- and McKinley-based claims and ineffective-assistance claims | Respondent: no opposition filed (no adversarial position presented) | Court granted a stay and abeyance under its discretion informed by Rhines and comity/judicial-economy concerns |
| Whether Lockridge-based OV scoring claim is plainly meritless | Winstanley: OVs (OV 9, OV 10, OV 14) were improperly scored under Lockridge; appellate counsel ineffective for failing to obtain relief | Respondent: argued nothing in opposition; Court considered whether claim was plainly meritless | Court found the Lockridge claim not plainly meritless and suitable for state-court resolution prior to federal review |
| Whether restitution claim (McKinley) provides federal habeas relief | Winstanley: restitution assessed to many victims beyond convictions, illegal under McKinley | Respondent: no response; Court noted potential procedural/substantive limits | Court observed restitution claims may fall outside habeas ‘‘in custody’’ scope and may not be proper for federal habeas review |
| Time limits and administrative handling of stayed case | Winstanley: requested stay and to return after exhaustion | Respondent: no position | Court imposed deadlines: file state motion within 90 days; file amended federal petition and motion to lift stay within 90 days after state proceedings conclude; administratively close case pending exhaustion |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (stay and abeyance standard for mixed petitions) (district court may stay only for good cause; avoid abusive delay; deny stay for plainly meritless claims)
- Lockridge v. Michigan, 870 N.W.2d 502 (Mich. 2015) (holding that mandatory minimum driven by judge-found facts in scoring offense variables can violate the Sixth Amendment)
- McKinley v. Michigan, 852 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. 2014) (addressing restitution/related sentencing issues relied on by petitioner)
- Hargrove v. Brigano, 300 F.3d 717 (6th Cir. 2002) (AEDPA statute-of-limitations concerns when dismissing to permit exhaustion)
- Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (no statutory tolling while a federal habeas petition is pending)