Blocker v. Miles

Background

Bryan NMN Blocker filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his state-court custody. He also moved to stay the federal proceeding while he pursued one claim in state court so that he could satisfy the requirement to exhaust available state-court remedies. Blocker represented himself.

Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended denying the stay, allowing Blocker to delete his unexhausted claims, and allowing him to proceed on his exhausted claims. Blocker filed objections to that recommendation.

Legal standard

A federal court generally may not grant relief on a state-custody petition unless the petitioner has exhausted available state-court remedies. A petition containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims is called a mixed petition. Under the procedure approved in Rhines v. Weber, a court may stay a mixed petition while the petitioner returns to state court, but only if the petitioner shows good cause for failing to exhaust, the unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and the petitioner is not intentionally delaying the case. If a stay is inappropriate, the court should allow the petitioner to delete the unexhausted claims and proceed with the exhausted claims.

Because Blocker properly identified and explained his objections, Judge Tunheim reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected Blocker’s argument that the recommendation had characterized his request as a delaying tactic. The recommendation had instead stated that there was no indication that Blocker was engaging in intentionally delaying litigation.

The court also rejected Blocker’s argument concerning deletion of the unexhausted claims. Blocker relied mainly on his status as a self-represented litigant. The court stated that he had not shown good cause for failing to exhaust his claims. His only explanation was that he lacked a lawyer, but he did not explain how that lack of assistance prevented exhaustion. He also did not allege that he missed a deadline or sought and was denied appointed counsel.

The court further determined that Blocker had not shown that his unexhausted claims were potentially meritorious. Although courts read self-represented filings generously, the court found that neither Blocker’s petition nor his objections alleged facts supporting his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.

Disposition

Judge Tunheim overruled Blocker’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court denied Blocker’s motion for a stay and granted him leave to amend his petition to delete the unexhausted claims. The order addressed the stay and amendment issues; the opinion does not decide the merits of Blocker’s exhausted claims.