Wilson v. Estes

Filing 13

ORDER STAYING CASE. Granting 2 MOTION to Stay filed by Harris Wilson. The parties are directed to file joint status reports every sixty days. Status Report due by 4/25/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins on 2/24/2016. copies to parties. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
HARRIS WILSON,

:
:

Petitioner,
:

v.

CIVIL ACTION 15-00292-WS-B

:
DEWAYNE ESTES,

:

Respondent.
ORDER
This

action

is

before

the

unopposed Motion to Stay (Doc. 2).

court

on

Harris

Wilson’s

Wilson, a state inmate in

the custody of Respondent, has petitioned this Court for federal
habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1).

In

his petition, Wilson asserts that the imposition of a mandatory
sentence of life without parole upon him for an offense that
occurred when he was only 16 years old constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
Miller

v.

Alabama,

132

S.Ct.

2455

(2012).

(Id.).

Since

the

filing of Wilson’s petition, and his unopposed motion to stay,
the U.S. Supreme Court, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, No. 14-280,
2016 U.S. LEXIS 862, 2016 WL 280758 (Jan. 25, 2016), held that
the Supreme Court’s Miller

decision announced a new substantive

rule that is retroactive in cases on state collateral review.

Counsel for the parties agree that in light of the Miller
and Montgomery decisions, Wilson is entitled to a resentencing
hearing in state court. (Doc. 12).

Counsel further advises that

they anticipate that Wilson’s petition for a writ of certiorari,
which is currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, will
be granted, and this case will be remanded to the state courts
for

further

proceedings

consistent

with

Montgomery.

(Id.)

Thus, they request that Wilson’s petition be held in abeyance
since action by the state courts may obviate the need for habeas
relief. (Id.)

Upon consideration, and for good cause shown, the

motion to stay is granted. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,
275-79, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1533-35, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005). (the
district court has discretion to employ a "stay-and-abeyance"
procedure where (1) there was good cause for the petitioner's
failure to exhaust his claims first in state court, (2) the
unexhausted claims are not plainly meritless, and (3) there is
no

indication

that

the

petitioner

engaged

in

intentionally

dilatory litigation tactics).
The parties are directed to file joint status reports every
sixty days.
DONE this 24th day of February, 2016.
/s/ SONJA F. BIVINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

_