Habeas Corpus; Sentencing

Habeas Corpus
Sentencing

An unripe career offender claim should be stayed pending state court proceedings.

“We see no reason why Purvis’s unripe career-offender claim should be treated as fundamentally different than an unexhausted habeas claim when considering whether a stay is proper. We are reluctant to find that a ripe Johnson claim brought for the first time in a second § 2255 motion is not ‘second or successive.’ Although that approach is logical and consistent with Supreme Court precedent, there is greater textual support in the statute for the procedure outlined in Rhines. That district courts may receive meritless and unripe Johnson claims does not outweigh a petitioner’s interest in obtaining federal review. And in any event, that effect could be alleviated, and the purposes of AEDPA protected, by applying the limitations in Rhines.”

“We caution that the ‘stay and abeyance’ of unripe Johnson claims should be limited to narrow circumstances where there is good cause for the petitioner’s stay request, the claim is potentially meritorious, and there is no indication that the petitioner is engaging in dilatory tactics. See Rhines, 544 U.S. at 278.”

Reversed and Remanded.

10-2432 Purvis v. U.S.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Reinhard, J., Bauer, J.

Full Text