Helton v. Boughton, Case No. 15-C-924

• Decision Date: 21 May 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 15-C-924
• Parties: DAVID A. HELTON, Petitioner, v. GARY BOUGHTON, Warden,, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

DAVID A. HELTON, Petitioner,
v.
GARY BOUGHTON, Warden,, Respondent.

Case No. 15-C-924

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

May 21, 2018

DECISION AND ORDER

On July 31, 2015, Petitioner David Helton filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting that his state court conviction and sentence were imposed in violation of the Constitution. In a December 21, 2015 order, the court found that Helton had not exhausted most, if not all, of the approximately 28 sub-issues contained in the first ground of his petition. The court gave Helton two options: 1) he could abandon the exhausted claims and proceed, or 2) the entire petition would be dismissed without prejudice. After several extensions of time without a response from Helton, the court dismissed his petition without prejudice. ECF No. 25. Helton appealed, and while the case was on appeal, the parties filed a joint motion to remand the case back to the district court to determine whether a stay should have been imposed under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). ECF No. 35-1. The Appellate Court granted the motion and remanded the case. Id. Now before me is Helton's motion to stay his petition under Rhines. For the reasons that follow, Helton's motion will be denied.

Before a prisoner may bring a federal habeas petition challenging his state conviction, he must raise and exhaust all of his constitutional claims to each appropriate state court. See Perruquet v.

Page 2

Briley, 390 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir. 2004) (requiring constitutional claims to be brought to each appropriate state court). A federal court may not adjudicate mixed claims habeas petitions, or petitions with both exhausted and unexhausted claims. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). Thus, when a prisoner submits a mixed claims habeas petition, he has three options: 1) he may abandoned his unexhausted claims and proceed only on his exhausted claims; 2) the petition is dismissed without prejudice; or 3) the petitioner may move the court to stay and abeyance his petition until he has the opportunity to exhaust his state court remedies. Rhines, 544 U.S. at 269. In Rhines, the Supreme Court identified three factors for courts to consider when determining whether it should stay and hold a habeas petition in abeyance: 1) whether there was good cause for the failure to exhaust; 2) whether his unexhausted claims are meritorious; and 3) whether there is any indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics. Id. at 278.

After the Seventh Circuit remanded the case, the court held a telephonic hearing with all parties, where the Rhines factors were discussed and Helton was ordered to file a motion to stay his habeas proceedings applying the Rhines factors. ECF No. 36. Rather than address the factors, Helton makes a series of meritless arguments. First, he alleges it would be an abuse of the court's discretion not to grant a stay because the Seventh Circuit has already ruled that his issues present a substantial showing. ECF No. 37 at 1. However, that is untrue; without ruling on any of the merits the Seventh Circuit remanded the case for a stay determination based on a motion by both parties. ECF No. 35-1. Next, Helton alleges that Judge Sankovitz...