Grace v. Cain

Filing 159

ORDER denying 151 Motion to Stay Judgment and Release Pending Appeal as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 2/8/2022. (lw)

Case 2:02-cv-03818-JTM Document 159 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JESSIE JAMES GRACE, III

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 02-3818

BURL CAIN, WARDEN

SECTION AH@(2)
ORDER

Before the Court is Respondent’s Motion to Stay Judgment and Release
Pending Appeal (Doc. 151). On December 3, this Court granted Petitioner
Jessie James Grace, III habeas relief and ordered that he be retried or released
within 120 days. 1 Thereafter, Respondent filed the instant motion asking for a
stay of that judgment pending appeal. Petitioner opposes.
Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure creates a
rebuttable presumption that a prisoner who has received habeas relief will be
released pending appeal. The Supreme Court advised that a court considering
whether to stay the release of a prisoner and continue custody should consider
the traditional factors for a stay pending appeal:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he
is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay

1

Docs. 146, 147.

1

Case 2:02-cv-03818-JTM Document 159 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 3

will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. 2
“The most important factor is whether the state has made a strong showing of
likelihood of success on the merits.” 3 These factors, however, are not exclusive.
Courts should also consider whether there is a risk that the prisoner will pose
a danger to the public if released and the State’s interest in continuing custody
and rehabilitation pending a final determination of the case on appeal. 4 The
latter factor “will be strongest where the remaining portion of the sentence to
be served is long, and weakest where there is little of the sentence remaining
to be served.” 5
Respondent predominately argues that a stay is appropriate here
because of its likelihood of success on the merits. It argues that this Court erred
by (1) relying on Fifth Circuit precedent instead of Supreme Court precedent
and (2) failing to show deference to the state court’s decision. This Court is not
impressed by Respondent’s likelihood of success on these arguments. Further,
Respondent does not provide any evidence that Petitioner is a risk to the public
or that it has any unique interest in continuing custody of him. That said, the
Supreme Court “recognizes that the State has a strong interest in continuing
custody where there is a long period left on the prisoner’s sentence.” 6 Because
Petitioner is serving a life sentence, “the State’s interest in continuing custody
should be given substantial weight.” 7
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); see Woodfox v. Cain, 305 F. App’x 179,
181 (5th Cir. 2008).
3 Woodfox v. Cain, 789 F.3d 565, 569 (5th Cir. 2015).
4 Hilton, 481 U.S. at 777.
5 Id.
6 Woodfox, 305 F. App’x at 182.
7 Id.
2
2

Case 2:02-cv-03818-JTM Document 159 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 3

That said, the Court finds it particularly compelling that in light of other
pending charges, denial of this Motion will not result in Petitioner’s immediate
release. In fact, denial of this Motion would facilitate Petitioner’s transfer to
the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center where he can better assist his
attorney in addressing those pending charges. “[T]he interest of a successful
habeas petitioner in being released pending appeal is always substantial,” 8 but
this Court finds Petitioner’s interest to be even more compelling in light of his
need to address other pending charges. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Respondent has not presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of
release and that Petitioner’s unique interest in release weighs against a stay.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Stay Judgment and
Release Pending Appeal is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 8th day of February, 2022.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

Id. at 181.

3