Floyd v. Cain
Filing
155
ORDER AND REASONS denying 151 Motion to dissolve Stay. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 5/16/2018. (cg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOHN D. FLOYD
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11-2819
DARREL VANNOY, WARDEN
SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Petitioner John Floyd moves to dissolve the stay of the Court’s May 8,
2017 order granting his petition for habeas corpus. 1 For the following
reasons, the Court denies the motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Court has provided a full procedural and factual history of this case
in its previous orders.2 The facts that follow are limited to what is relevant
to the motion before the Court. In 1982, Floyd was convicted in Louisiana
state court of the second-degree murder of William Hines and sentenced to
life imprisonment. 3 In 2011, Floyd petitioned the Court for habeas corpus
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.4 To overcome the untimeliness of his petition,
Floyd argued that he was actually innocent of the murder of Hines, and
1
2
3
4
R. Doc. 151.
See R. Doc. 78; R. Doc. 109.
R. Doc. 78 at 31.
R. Doc. 1.
therefore his petition could proceed under McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S.
383 (2013).5
On September 14, 2016, the Court—considering both old and new
evidence—found that Floyd preponderantly established that no reasonable
juror would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of
Hines. 6
Floyd therefore satisfied the legal standard to overcome the
untimeliness of his petition. 7 The Magistrate Judge later issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Floyd’s habeas petition be granted
because the State withheld material, favorable evidence in violation of Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and the state court’s contrary decision was
an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. 8 On May 8,
2017, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation, granted Floyd’s
petition for habeas corpus, and ordered the State of Louisiana to either retry
Floyd or release him within 120 days.9 The State filed a notice of appeal. 10
Following the Court’s order granting habeas relief, the State moved for
a stay of this order pending appeal, and Floyd moved for release under
5
6
7
8
9
10
R. Doc. 61.
R. Doc. 78.
Id.
R. Doc. 81.
R. Doc. 109.
R. Doc. 111.
2
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c). 11 Floyd proposed that he be
released on his own recognizance under certain conditions, including that he
remain within the State of Louisiana absent the Court’s permission to leave,
that he live on a specified farm near Lafayette, that he not be absent from
this farm for more than 18 hours at a time, and that he report to the U.S.
Probation Office in person at least once per week. 12 Both the State’s motion
to stay and Floyd’s motion for release were initially opposed, but the parties
later reached an agreement as to these motions.
On June 9, 2017, the State and Floyd jointly moved the Court to stay
its order granting habeas relief and to release Floyd under the conditions set
out in his motion for release.13 After considering the relevant legal standards,
the Court approved the parties’ agreed upon outcome because it preserved
the State’s interest in conserving the resources necessary to retry Floyd,
advanced Floyd’s interest in avoiding unconstitutional detention, and served
the public interest.14 The Court thus granted a stay of its May 8, 2017 order
pending the State’s appeal and further ordered that Floyd be immediately
released under specified conditions.15
11
12
13
14
15
R. Doc. 112; R. Doc. 114.
R. Doc. 114-1 at 9-11; R. Doc. 114-4.
R. Doc. 124.
R. Doc. 130 at 6-9.
Id. at 10-11.
3
On April 6, 2018, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
Court’s judgment granting Floyd’s petition for habeas corpus. See Floyd v.
Vannoy, 887 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2018). On April 20, 2018, the State filed a
petition for rehearing en banc. The Fifth Circuit requested a response to the
petition, and Floyd filed an opposition to rehearing en banc. The petition for
rehearing remains pending, and the Fifth Circuit’s mandate has not issued.
Floyd now moves to dissolve the stay of the Court’s May 8, 2017 order
requiring that he be released or retried within 120 days. 16
II.
DISCUSSION
Floyd argues that the Fifth Circuit’s April 6, 2018 judgment satisfied
the terms of the Court’s order granting a stay pending appeal, and the stay
should therefore be dissolved.17 Floyd asserts that a petition for rehearing en
banc is not an ordinary part of appellate proceedings, and thus does not
justify continuing the stay.18 But a timely petition for rehearing en banc stays
the mandate of the court of appeals until disposition of the petition. See Fed.
R. App. P. 41(d)(1). Floyd points to no cases in which a stay pending appeal
was deemed satisfied before issuance of the mandate.
16
17
18
R. Doc. 151.
Id. at 1.
R. Doc. 151-1 at 3.
4
The court of appeals “retains control over an appeal until [it] issue[s] a
mandate,” and its decisions are not final until the mandate issues. Comer v.
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 718 F.3d 460, 467-68 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal
citations and quotation marks omitted); see also 16AA Wright & Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure § 3987 (4th ed. 2018) (explaining that “[s]o
long as issuance of the mandate remains stayed by a timely petition for
rehearing, the case is ‘pending’ in the court of appeals”). Because the State’s
appeal remains pending before the Fifth Circuit, the stay of the Court’s order
granting habeas relief continues in effect.
Floyd has not shown changed circumstances that warrant vacating the
stay, nor has he demonstrated that he is substantially injured by the
continuation of the stay. See Veasey v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir.
2014) (outlining the factors relevant to a stay pending appeal). In its June
22, 2017 order, the Court released Floyd under conditions very similar to
those proposed in his motion for release.19 If Floyd believes these conditions
have become unduly restrictive, he may file a motion to modify the
conditions of his release.
R. Doc. 130 at 10-11; see also R. Doc. 114-1 at 9-11; R. Doc. 114-4. The
Court added only two conditions not included in Floyd’s motion: that Floyd
not possess a firearm, destructive device, or other weapon, and that Floyd
cooperate with and truthfully answer all inquiries by the Probation Office.
See R. Doc. 130 at 10.
5
19
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Floyd’s motion to dissolve the stay is
DENIED.
16th
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of May, 2018.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?