Traylor v. Pugh

Background

Raymond Joseph Traylor, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his state-court conviction. The court understood the petition to raise four grounds: one claim that trial rulings denied him the constitutional right to present a complete defense, and three claims that his appellate lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise issues involving undisclosed records, the Confrontation Clause, and an allegedly vindictive prosecution.

Federal law generally requires a state prisoner to present each federal claim to the state courts before seeking federal habeas relief. The court concluded that Traylor had exhausted Ground One but had not shown that he presented Grounds Two through Four to each level of Minnesota’s courts. The court also found that he had not shown that either statutory exception to exhaustion applied. The court noted that a state postconviction proceeding concerning at least Ground Two, and possibly Ground Three, appeared to be pending.

Request for Appointed Counsel

The court considered Traylor’s request for appointed counsel first. It explained that counsel may be appointed in a habeas case when the interests of justice require it, considering the case’s legal and factual complexity and the petitioner’s ability to investigate and present his claims. The court found that the case did not presently appear legally or factually complex and that Traylor appeared able to investigate the facts and present his arguments. It therefore denied the motion seeking appointment of counsel.

Mixed Petition and Required Choice

Because Ground One appeared exhausted while Grounds Two through Four remained unexhausted, the court characterized the petition as a “mixed” petition. Federal district courts generally may not decide mixed petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims.

The court concluded that a stay was not appropriate based on the materials before it. It gave Traylor two options: proceed in federal court only on Ground One, or voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice, pursue Grounds Two through Four in Minnesota’s courts, and return to federal court if necessary after those proceedings. The court ordered Traylor to state his choice within 21 days of the order’s date. If he failed to explicitly select either option, the court stated that it would recommend dismissing the action without prejudice as a mixed petition.

Disposition and Scope of the Ruling

The order denied the motion for appointed counsel. It did not resolve the merits of Traylor’s constitutional or ineffective-assistance claims and did not itself dismiss the petition. Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung issued the order.