Carneal v. Donahue

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 34 Motion to Stay by Chief Judge Thomas B. Russell on 04/06/2010; action stayed pending decision in US Supreme Court; parties shall notify Court in writing when opinion issued; telephonic conf of 04/20/2010 canceled. cc:counsel (CSD)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:09CV-P32-R MICHAEL ADAM CARNEAL v. J. DAVID DONAHUE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Respondent's motion to hold this matter in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court's anticipated opinion in Holland v Florida, 539 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 130 S. Ct. 398, 175 L. Ed. 2d 267 (2009). Respondent asserts that Holland could be dispositive of the equitable tolling issue in this case. Petitioner argues that the facts of Holland are markedly different than the facts of this case, and therefore, the Supreme Court's decision in Holland is not likely to impact the issues in this case. "The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court has reviewed the briefings associated with the Holland case as well as the March 1, 2010, oral argument transcript. Upon doing so, the Court concludes that there is a strong possibility that the Supreme Court will provide the lower federal courts with additional guidance regarding under what circumstances, if any, equitable tolling is applicable to AEDPA's statute of limitations. Furthermore, since oral argument has already been completed, it is likely that the Supreme Court will issue a decision in Holland before the end of the current term. Thus, the Court concludes that most judicious course of action would be to stay this case RESPONDENT PETITIONER pending a decision by the Supreme Court in Holland. Holding this case in abeyance and maintaining the status quo for a brief period of time will minimize the litigation expenses to the parties by avoiding potentially additional litigation should the state of the law change in the next several months. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's motion to hold this matter in abeyance (DN 34) is GRANTED and that this action is STAYED and all proceedings are HELD IN ABEYANCE pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Holland. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall notify the Court in writing when an opinion has been issued by the United States Supreme Court in Holland. At that time, the Court will set a status/scheduling conference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the telephonic conference set for April 20, 2010, is CANCELLED. Date: April 6, 2010 cc: Counsel of record 4413.008 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?