Ventry v. Hobbs

Filing 38

ORDER granting petitioner permission to file an amended 18 USC § 2254 petition and declining to adopt the 20 Report and Recommendations addressing Petitioner's current section § 2254 claims. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 3/1/13. (kpr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/1/2013: # 1 Main Document - Correct) (thd).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION MONTRELL DASHONE VENTRY ADC #141556 VS. PETITIONER NO. 5:10CV00233 RAY HOBBS, Director Arkansas Department of Correction RESPONDENT ORDER Petitioner, through appointed counsel seeks permission to file an amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition containing his unexhausted 8th Amendment claim and subsequently seek a stay as set forth in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). The Court finds that good cause is shown for the Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his 8th Amendment claim and Petitioner’s unexhausted claim is not plainly meritless.1 Petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. Petitioner will have thirty (30) days from the entry of this Order to file his amended § 2254 petition and to seek a stay. The Court will decline to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations addressing Petitioner’s current § 2254 claims IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2013. ______________________________ James M. Moody United States District Judge 1 Courts have disagreed as to whether Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) applies retroactively. See, Craig v. Cain, 2013 WL 69128 (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2013) (not retroactive); People v. Carp, 2012 WL 5846553 (Mich.App. Nov. 15, 2012) (not retroactive); Geter v. State, 2012 WL 4448860 (Fla.App. Sept. 27, 2012) (not retroactive); State v. Simmons, 99 So.3d 28 (La.2012) (allowing for resentencing on collateral review in light of Miller ); People v. Morfin, 2012 WL 6028634 (Ill.App. Nov. 30, 2012) ( Miller retroactive). 1 2

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?