Tyson v. Dunn (DEATH PENALTY)
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that: 1) Petitioner Tyson's 41 Motion to Require the State to Show Cause for Failing to Comply with the Court's Scheduling Order is GRANTED; 2) The State's 43 response to Petitioner 39;s motion demonstrates excusable neglect for its failure to comply with the Scheduling Order; 3) The State's 43 Motion for an Extension Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B) FRCP to file an Answer to Tyson's Second Amended Petition is GRANTED; 4) The State's 45 Motion to Accept Answer as Timely Filed is GRANTED; 5) The State's 46 Answer to Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DEEMED properly filed; 6) Tyson's 47 Motion to Strike the State's Answer is DENIED; 7) On or before 11/23/2020, the State shall submit to the Clerk true and correct copies of all pertinent state court records from Petitioner's state court proceedings, as further set out in order; 8) On or before 11/23/2020, pursuant to Federal Habeas Rule 5(e), Petitioner may file a reply to the State's answer; 9) Any party seeking an extension of the foregoing deadlines must file a motion prior to the expiration of the deadline and must set forth detailed reasons why that party, despite the exercise of due diligence and in consideration of the passage of time, cannot comply with the deadline. Signed by Honorable Judge William Keith Watkins on 11/4/2020. (amf, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY TYSON,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, Comm’r,
Alabama Department of Corrections,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 3:17-CV-719-WKW
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 20, 2017, Petitioner Anthony Tyson, a death-sentenced inmate in
the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections, filed this habeas corpus
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges his conviction in the Macon
County Circuit Court for the capital murders of Derek Cowan and Damien
Thompson in 1997, and the death sentence he received in 1998. (Doc. # 1.) Tyson
brings this action against Jefferson S. Dunn, the Commissioner of the Alabama
Department of Corrections (“the State”), alleging that his conviction and death
sentence were obtained in violation of his rights under the United States
Constitution.
For the reasons detailed in its May 29, 2020 Order, the court (1) construed
Tyson’s reply (Doc. # 27) to the State’s answer (Doc. # 23) as an amended petition;
(2) granted Tyson’s request for leave to file an amended petition; (3) directed Tyson
to re-file his reply and to caption it as a second amended petition; (4) established
June 15, 2020, as the deadline for Tyson to file his second amended petition; and
(5) set July 15, 2020, as the deadline for the State to file its responsive pleading, with
copies of the state court proceedings relative to Tyson’s Batson claim to be filed
thirty days later. Tyson timely filed his second amended petition on June 15, 2020.
(Doc. # 40.) However, the State did not file a responsive pleading or the state court
proceedings concerning Tyson’s Batson claim by the court-ordered deadlines.
On September 15, 2020, Tyson moved the court to order the State to show
cause for its failure to comply with the May 29, 2020 Order. (Doc. # 41.) On
September 16, 2020, the State responded to Tyson’s motion and moved for an
extension of time, pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, until October 16, 2020, to comply with the May 29, 2020 Order. (Doc.
# 43.) On September 17, 2020, Tyson filed a reply. (Doc. # 44.) On October 16,
2020, the State filed a Motion to Accept Answer as Timely Filed (Doc. # 45) and
submitted its Response to Tyson’s Second Amended Habeas Petition. (Doc. # 46.)
Tyson’s motion to order the State to show cause is due to be granted.
However, because the State has demonstrated excusable neglect for its failure to
comply with the May 29, 2020 Order, the State’s motion for an extension of time is
due to be granted.
2
II. BACKGROUND
A.
Tyson’s Motion to Require the State to Show Cause
Tyson’s motion tracks the procedural history of this case and points out the
State’s failure to comply with the deadlines in the May 29, 2020 Order. Tyson
requests an order directing the State to show cause for its deficiencies and further
requests a default judgment granting the relief requested in the habeas petition if the
State failed to show cause. (Doc. # 41.)
On September 16, 2020, the day after Tyson’s motion was filed, the State
responded and described a series of events that resulted in its failure to comply with
its filing deadlines in the May 29, 2020 Order. The State explains:
3. All litigation in cases in which the death penalty was
imposed are handled by the Capital Litigation Division of the
Alabama Attorney General’s Office. Prior counsel for Respondent,
Assistant Attorney General John Selden, left the Capital Litigation
Division prior to this Court’s May 29, 2020, order. Ordinarily, in
such instances, service would continue to be received by the
docketing clerk for the Capital Litigation Division. However,
through an apparent administrative error, filings in this matter were
also reassigned. Consequently, the Capital Litigation Division’s
docketing clerk did not receive, docket, or calendar this Court’s
order, the subsequent Amended Petition, or Petitioner’s motion, and
none of these documents were entered into the Attorney General’s
Office’s case management system. Additionally, due to the
COVID-19 situation in Alabama, and particularly in the city of
Montgomery, many Alabama Attorney General personnel have been
working remotely.
This has further inhibited effective
communication among office personnel.
4. Yesterday afternoon, undersigned counsel was made
aware of Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 41), immediately began
3
attempting to determine what had happened, and consequently
learned of the prior actions in this matter. Earlier today, undersigned
counsel entered a notice of appearance in this matter (Doc. 42) and
will be responsible for representing Respondent going forward.
(Doc. # 43 at 2–3.)
The State contends that the sanctions Tyson proposes are excessive and
unwarranted, and the State submits that its “failure to comply with the July 15
deadline was due to excusable neglect caused by miscommunication and clerical
error, compounded by an unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic situation that
impeded administrative efficiency and communication.” (Doc. # 43 at 4–5.)
In reply, Tyson avers that the State’s response is insufficient to excuse its
failure to comply with the May 29, 2020 Order and that regardless of its explanation,
the State should be sanctioned for its noncompliance.
B.
The State’s Rule 6(b)(1)(B) Motion for Extension of Time
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) provides in part that, “[w]hen an act
may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend
the time: . . . (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to
act because of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B).
The State has moved for a thirty-day extension to comply with the May 29,
2020 Order. The State argues that it has shown excusable neglect for its failure to
meet the filing deadlines. Tyson counters that the State’s neglect is not excusable.
4
III. DISCUSSION
When the government fails to timely comply with a court’s order to file a
response in a habeas proceeding, “the appropriate procedure is to issue an order to
show cause, and if appropriate impose a proper sanction.” Sparrow v. United States,
174 F.R.D. 491, 493 (D. Utah 1997); see also Harris v. United States, No. CIV.A.
09-00671-WS, 2011 WL 5597281, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ala. May 12) (noting that “default
judgments are inappropriate in habeas corpus cases”), report and recommendation
adopted, No. CIV.A. 09-00671-WS, 2011 WL 5597263 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 17, 2011);
Rivero v. McDaniel, No. 3:09CV00284LRHVPC, 2009 WL 3464841, at *1 (D. Nev.
Oct. 27, 2009) (“Default judgments are disfavored in habeas corpus cases and
petitioner is not entitled to a default judgment merely because respondents have
failed to file an answer or other response.”).
Tyson requests a default judgment against the State as a sanction for its
violation of the May 29, 2020 Order. At a minimum, Tyson proposes that the court
should require the State to stand on its previously filed answer (Doc. # 23) and to
submit the state court records relevant to Tyson’s Batson claim in an expedited
manner. In support of his request for sanctions, Tyson relies on several cases from
other jurisdictions. In Ruiz v. Cady, 660 F.2d 337 (7th Cir. 1981), for example, the
Seventh Circuit reversed a default judgment entered against the state in a habeas
case and proposed alternative, lesser sanctions, such as notifying the state attorney
5
general that future “requests for extension would be routinely denied,” “shorten[ing]
the normal briefing schedule,” or “disciplin[ing] counsel or institut[ing] contempt
proceedings against counsel for the state.” Id. at 341 (alterations added); see also
U.S. ex rel. Mattox v. Scott, 507 F.2d 919, 924 (7th Cir. 1974) (finding that an
appropriate approach to a state’s failure to file an answer would be for “the district
court [to] proceed to consider the petition as if a return had been properly made,” or
“to censure the staff of the [state] and to refuse to consider the tardy return”);
Wilkerson v. Jones, 211 F. Supp. 2d 856, 860 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (finding that counsel
for the state had a “consistent pattern of waiting until after the deadline to file an
answer has passed before seeking an additional four months within which to file an
answer”); Beall v. Cockrell, 174 F. Supp. 2d 512, 518 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (precluding
an untimely response where the attorney had direct knowledge of the filing
requirement and had communicated with the court about it, but nevertheless “failed
to comply with two court orders”); Curtis v. Perini, 301 F. Supp. 444, 445 (N.D.
Ohio 1968) (refusing to consider the state’s answer in a habeas case where a brief
was filed “several days after the date given” for its filing).
As the State points out, this case stands in sharp contrast to the cases on which
Tyson relies to support his request for sanctions. For instance, in Beall v. Cockrell,
supra, the state had repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s orders, whereas
here, the State’s failure to comply with a court order has occurred just once.
6
Likewise, the present action is distinguishable from the pattern of delay in Wilkerson
v. Jones. See 211 F. Supp. 2d at 860. In this case and in other habeas cases pending
in this court, the State has not exhibited a pattern of waiting until a deadline has
passed before seeking relief.
The State’s explanation for its failure to comply demonstrates that the State
did not deliberately flout the Scheduling Order deadlines. Instead, it appears that a
combination of events 1 and administrative and/or clerical errors occurring within the
Alabama Attorney General’s Office resulted in the Scheduling Order not being
logged into its case management system. Essentially, the Order became lost in the
system through a series of unrelated events and circumstances.
The State points out that it was not until Tyson filed the motion for a show
case order that it became aware of its failure to comply with the May 29, 2020 Order
and of the missed filing deadlines. But when the State learned of its noncompliance,
the State promptly rectified it. The next day (1) the State’s present counsel entered
a Notice of Appearance; (2) the State responded to Tyson’s motion for a show cause
1
The State’s present counsel, Richard D. Anderson, advises that the State’s prior counsel
in this case, John Selden, left the Capital Litigation Division of the Attorney General’s Office prior
to the entry of the May 29, 2020 Order. For reasons unknown, upon his departure from the Capital
Litigation Division, Mr. Selden did not move to withdraw as the State’s counsel in this case.
Currently, he remains as counsel of record, along with Assistant Attorney General Richard D.
Anderson, who entered his appearance on September 16, 2020. (Doc. # 42.)
7
order; and (3) it moved for an extension of time, pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B), to
comply with the May 29, 2020 Order.
Given the combination of events resulting in the State’s failure to comply with
the Scheduling Order and because this is the first time in this case that the State has
failed to comply with a court order, sanctions will not be imposed against the State
for this infraction. The present situation calls to mind the familiar phrase, “to err is
human, to forgive divine.” Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism (1711).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that:
1.
Petitioner Tyson’s Motion to Require the State to Show Cause for
Failing to Comply with the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. # 41) is GRANTED.
2.
The State’s response to Petitioner’s motion (Doc. # 43) demonstrates
excusable neglect for its failure to comply with the Scheduling Order.
3.
The State’s Motion for an Extension Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to file an Answer to Tyson’s Second Amended
Petition (Doc. # 43) is GRANTED.
4.
The State’s Motion to Accept Answer as Timely Filed (Doc. # 45) is
GRANTED.
5.
The State’s Answer to Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. # 46) is DEEMED properly filed.
8
6.
Tyson’s Motion to Strike the State’s Answer (Doc. # 47) is DENIED.
7.
On or before November 23, 2020, the State shall submit to the Clerk
of the Court true and correct copies of all pertinent state court records from
Petitioner’s state court proceedings, including copies of any and all still-available
juror questionnaires completed by Petitioner’s jury venire members (consideration
of which is necessary in order to resolve Petitioner’s Batson claim);
8.
On or before November 23, 2020, pursuant to Federal Habeas Rule
5(e), Petitioner may file a reply to the State’s answer;
9.
Any party seeking an extension of the foregoing deadlines must file a
motion prior to the expiration of the deadline and must set forth detailed reasons why
that party, despite the exercise of due diligence and in consideration of the passage
of time, cannot comply with the deadline.
DONE this 4th day of November, 2020.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?