Hambrick v. Robey

Hambrick v. Robey · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky · January 23, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-00039

Summary

This United States District Court order adopts a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation regarding a pro se petitioner’s motion for a protective petition seeking a stay and abeyance of a federal habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court conditionally grants the motion, staying the federal proceedings pending the exhaustion of state post-conviction remedies. The order outlines specific conditions the petitioner must meet to preserve his right to amend and reopen the federal petition after exhausting state remedies.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Writing for the Court
David Bunning
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Decision date
January 23, 2025
Docket number
2:24-cv-00039
Procedural posture
Petitioner filed a pro se Motion for Protective Petition seeking a stay of his §2254 habeas petition; Magistrate Judge Smith issued a Report and Recommendation which the District Court adopted.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
unknown
Parties
Brandon Hambrick, Jr. v. Tim Lane, Warden, Green River Correctional Complex
Disposition
granted

Topics

state post-conviction reliefpost-conviction reliefcivil procedure

Practice areas

post-conviction reliefcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court may conditionally stay a §2254 habeas petition pending exhaustion of state post‑conviction remedies

Holdings

  1. The district court may adopt the magistrate’s recommendation and conditionally stay the habeas petition, constructing the motion as a protective petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254, and may impose conditions requiring the petitioner to exhaust state remedies before the stay is lifted.

Key quotations

That the STAY with this Court to preserve Hambrick’s opportunity to present a federal § 2254 Petition be CONDITIONED on Hambrick doing the following: a) presenting unexhausted claims to the state courts by Hambrick’s filing of a RCr 11.42 motion with the state trial court within thirty (30) days following the date of the District Judge’s Order adopting this Report and Recommendation; b) within 14 days after he makes that RCr 11.42 filing in the state trial court, Hambrick files proof in this federal action that he has made that state court filing; and c) within thirty (30) days of fully exhausting his state court remedies, filing a motion to reopen and lift the stay and amend his § 2254 Petition in this Court, using the same caption and case number as appears on this Report and Recommendation. (N/A)

Factual background

Hambrick, an inmate, filed a pro se motion asking the district court to stay his pending federal habeas petition while he pursued state post‑conviction relief. The magistrate examined the motion and recommended that the district court conditionally grant a stay pending exhaustion of state remedies.

Procedural history

The magistrate reviewed the motion, issued a Report and Recommendation on Nov. 11, 2024 and a corrected version on Dec. 2, 2024 recommending conditional denial. No objections were filed, and the District Court adopted the report and conditionally granted the protective petition.

Remand instructions

(a) File an unexhausted‑claims motion (RCr 11.42) in the state trial court within 30 days; (b) file proof of that filing in this action within 14 days of the state filing; (c) after fully exhausting state remedies, file a motion to reopen and lift the stay and amend the §2254 petition within 30 days.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…