Lee v. Hobbs

Filing 178

ORDER granting 171 Motion to reconsider, though not for most of the reasons argued. Testing Orders, part of 168 and 170 vacated. The most prudent course, all material things considered, is to cancel tomorrow's examination and testing. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 4/18/2017. (thd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION PETITIONER LEDELL LEE v. No. 5:01-cv-377-DPM WENDY KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER Given the many filings in this case during the last few days, it sure seems like a pending matter within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a). And Lee is the one who has recently added many pages arguing about Atkins issues, intellectual functioning, and neuropsychological test results. E.g., Ng 162, 162-1 & 166 at 29-36. The Court was trying to be fair in giving the State access for testing. But, Lee is partly right on this: if his execution is stayed, then there will be time for the State's examination in due course; if things go the other way, then the testing will have needlessly taken up some of Lee's last days. Kelley is right, too, that this confluence of circumstances is partly the fruit of Lee's litigation strategy. The Court has made no decision on, and awaits Kelley's responses to, the motions for funding, a stay, and Rule 60(b) relief. But the most prudent course, all material things considered, is to cancel tomorrow's examination and testing. The raw-data issue, as well as the lawyer-presence issue, are moot for now. Lee's request for a Court-ordered visit with counsel is beyond the currently briefed disputes. The Court directs counsel to confer and try to resolve it. * * * Motion to reconsider, Ng 171, granted, though not for most of the reasons argued. Testing Orders, part of Ng 168 and Ng 170, vacated. So Ordered. II D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 1a -2- H J.017

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?