JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Jonathan Emerine petitions the Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, Emerine has not yet exhausted his state remedies. The question is whether to dismiss the case without prejudice — as Respondent Sloan requests — or stay the case pending exhaustion — as Petitioner Emerine requests.
Magistrate Judge Parker issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court dismiss the case without prejudice. Emerine objects and asks the case be stayed pending exhaustion.
For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, DENIES Petitioner's motion to stay, and GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice.
An Ohio jury convicted Petitioner Emerine of rape and convicted Emerine of three counts of gross sexual imposition.
On June 15, 2017, Emerine petitioned the Ohio trial court to vacate his conviction, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the jurors may have been biased.
In September 2018, Emerine filed this habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arguing that: (i) the trial court failed to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, (ii) his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, (iii) his appellate counsel was ineffective, and (iv) his trial counsel was ineffective and the jurors were biased.
Emerine's fourth argument mirrors his pending Ohio Supreme Court petition. Accordingly, Respondent Sloan moves to dismiss the case without prejudice, arguing that Emerine has not yet exhausted his state remedies.
Because Petitioner Emerine objected to Judge Parker's R&R in its entirety, the Court considers the R&R's findings and conclusions de novo.
A petitioner seeking federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must first exhaust his state remedies.
Emerine's petition, however, does just that. His fourth claim for relief mirrors claims currently before the Ohio Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Court cannot consider the habeas petition.
The question then becomes what to do with the case. Generally, the Court should dismiss the case without prejudice — rather than issue a stay — unless doing so might time-bar the petitioner's case.
A habeas petitioner is generally required to file his petition within one year of his conviction becoming final.
However, Emerine's one-year clock was paused while his state petition to vacate judgment was pending. Except for forty-eight days between appeals, that case was pending from June 15, 2017 through the present.
Accordingly, Emerine's habeas limitations period is currently paused. It will restart after the Ohio Supreme Court concludes its proceedings. At which point, Emerine will still have more than ten months to refile his habeas petition. Thus, the Court dismisses Emerine's petition without prejudice until he has exhausted his state remedies.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Parker's R&R, DENIES Petitioner's motion to stay, and GRANTS Respondent's motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.