Filed: Jan. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER NOEL L. HILLMAN , District Judge . It appearing that: 1. Petitioner Raheem Harrity ("Petitioner"), a prisoner currently confined at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. ECF No. 1. 2. Petitioner also filed a Motion to Stay this matter so he can exhaust Grounds 4, 5, and 6 of his Petition in state court. ECF Nos. 2-3, 6. 3. Petitioner has raised the issues of ineffective assis
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER NOEL L. HILLMAN , District Judge . It appearing that: 1. Petitioner Raheem Harrity ("Petitioner"), a prisoner currently confined at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. ECF No. 1. 2. Petitioner also filed a Motion to Stay this matter so he can exhaust Grounds 4, 5, and 6 of his Petition in state court. ECF Nos. 2-3, 6. 3. Petitioner has raised the issues of ineffective assist..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.
It appearing that:
1. Petitioner Raheem Harrity ("Petitioner"), a prisoner currently confined at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, New Jersey, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1.
2. Petitioner also filed a Motion to Stay this matter so he can exhaust Grounds 4, 5, and 6 of his Petition in state court. ECF Nos. 2-3, 6.
3. Petitioner has raised the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his trial and appellate counsel in a second petition for post-conviction relief ("PCR"). The second PCR petition was denied on August 8, 2018 by the New Jersey Superior Court, which denial is presently on appeal before the Appellate Division. See ECF No. 13 at 3.
4. Respondents do not oppose Petitioner's request for a stay, stating that "Respondents do not object to Petitioner's October 26, 2018 motion request to stay and hold in abeyance his pending habeas application." Id. at 1.
5. In light of the presently pending second PCR petition, the lack of delay by Petitioner in seeking relief, and the lack of opposition by Respondent, the Court finds that a stay is appropriate in this matter while Petitioner exhausts the issues related to ineffective assistance of counsel. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005) (a stay is "appropriate when the district court determines that there was good cause for the petitioner's failure to exhaust his claims first in state court" and his unexhausted claim is not plainly meritless).
IT IS, therefore, on this 31st day of January, 2019,
ORDERED that Petitioner's Motions for a Stay of this action, ECF Nos. 2-3 and 6, are GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner shall return to this Court by filing a request to reopen this action within 30 days after exhaustion of his state law claim; and it is further
ORDERED that, if Petitioner should fail to comply with the deadline set forth in this Order, this Court may vacate this Order nunc pro tunc and dismiss all unexhausted claims without further notice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner by regular mail; and it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively terminate this action for case management purposes.
