Kott v. Cain et al
Filing
11
ORDER AND REASONS denying 4 Motion for Stay and Abeyance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael North. (lag)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
WALTER A. KOTT, JR.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER: 14-0953
N. BURL CAIN, WARDEN
SECTION: “E”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for stay and abeyance, the State’s
response thereto, and associated supplemental briefing from the parties. (Rec. docs. 4, 6, 9,
10). For the reasons that follow, it is ordered that Petitioner’s motion is denied.
In the interest of judicial economy, the procedural history of Petitioner’s state
criminal proceedings will not be recounted in full here but only to the extent necessary to
resolve the matter at hand. After Kott’s conviction had become final on February 20, 2013,
he filed a counseled application for post-conviction relief containing four claims that was
denied by the state trial court on June 20, 2013. (Rec. docs. 1-5, pp. 40-81; 1-4, p. 29).1/
Through counsel, Kott then filed a writ application with the Louisiana First Circuit Court of
In his direct criminal appeal, Kott had litigated three of the claims for relief that are set forth in his federal
habeas petition. State v. Kott, No. 2011-KA-0997, 2012 WL 602425 (La. App. 1st Cir. Feb. 10, 2012), writ
denied, 102 So.2d 53 (La. 2012); (Rec. doc. 1-4, pp. 16-26).
1/
Appeal on or about July 19, 2013. (Rec. doc. 1-5, pp. 2-39). According to Kott’s motion, in
early March of 2014, over six months later, he contacted his attorney to inquire about the
status of that writ application. On March 12, 2014, Petitioner’s attorney corresponded with
him as follows:
I have some bad news. Your Writ to the First Circuit was denied without
reasons on October 28, 2013. Somehow the email from the First Circuit got
lost in my inbox and they never mailed an actual copy to the office.
Obviously your writ to the Supreme Court is now untimely. Since we had no
opinion from the First Circuit, I seriously doubt the Louisiana Supreme Court
would have entertained the writ. Your Supreme Court Writ taken form your
direct appeal was denied on 11/21/2013 and your Post Conviction Relief
was filed six months and 3 days later. You still have your Federal Habeas
available to you until approximately April 24, 2014. My office has not been
retained to do either the Louisiana Supreme Court Writ or the Federal
Habeas. If you would like, I can send you a template for the Federal Habeas.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
(Rec. doc. 4, p. 12)
Several days later, Kott’s attorney swore out an affidavit in which she attested to the
following:
1. That I am the attorney of record for Walter A. Kott, Jr. who filed the
Supervisory Writ to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, State of Louisiana,
Docket No. 2013-KW-1257.
2. That during the week of March 10, 2014, I contacted the First Circuit
Court of Appeal to inquire about the ruling in the above case and was
informed that a ruling had been e-mailed to me on October 28, 2013.
3. That this was my first notification of the ruling.
4. That the e-mail which had been sent to me on October 28, 2013 was lost
in my inbox and only found last week after I inquired about the ruling
with the Court.
5. That a hard copy of the ruling was never received in the mail by my office
at any time.
6. That a copy of the ruling was immediately mailed to Water A. Kott, Jr., via
Certified Mail, Receipt No. 7012 1640 0000 5483 0403 on March 12,
2014.
2
7. That on Friday, March 14, 2014, I spoke with Walter A. Kott, Jr. and
advised him of the ruling and the events that had transpired.
(Rec. doc. 4, p. 14).
Upon being apprised of the foregoing sequence of events, Kott indicates that he
prepared a pro se application for writs containing the four claims for relief, along with a
motion for leave to file the writ application out-of-time, which were received by the
Louisiana Supreme Court on April 4, 2014. (Rec. doc. 4, p. 16). That matter remains
pending before the latter tribunal under docket number 2014-KH-0704. (Id.).
Kott now moves the Court to stay the above-captioned matter pending the
resolution of his writ application by the Louisiana Supreme Court. Recognizing that the
writ application was not timely-filed under the Rules of the state’s highest court, Kott
alternatively asks that the Court find that he is entitled to equitable tolling with respect to
the claims that are set forth in the writ application. For its part, the State argues that the
third claim presented in Kott’s habeas petition was not adjudicated in his direct criminal
appeal or in post-conviction proceedings and is thus unexhausted. The State further argues
that “good cause” for Kott’s failure to exhaust his post-conviction relief claims has not been
shown and that the requested stay and abeyance should therefore be denied.
In Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005), the Supreme Court held that,
in some circumstances, it is appropriate for a federal district to stay a habeas corpus
proceeding containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims in order to allow the
petitioner to litigate his unexhausted claims in state court and then return to federal court
to obtain review of his perfected condition. “[S]tay and abeyance is only appropriate when
3
the district court determines there was good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his
claims first in state court” and “. . . the district court would abuse its discretion if it were to
grant him a stay when his unexhausted claims are plainly meritless.” Rhines, 544 U.S. at
277, 125 S.Ct. at 1535. “On the other hand, it likely would be an abuse of discretion for a
district court to deny a stay and to dismiss a mixed petition if the petitioner had good cause
for his failure to exhaust, his unexhausted claims are potentially meritorious, and there is
no indication that the petitioner engaged in intentionally dilatory litigation tactics.” Id. at
278, 125 S.Ct. at 1535.
As a result of an e-mail being “lost” in the inbox of the attorney who represented
him in state post-conviction proceedings, Kott was provided belated notice that the
Louisiana First Circuit had denied his writ application to that tribunal. He has since filed a
writ application containing the four post-conviction claims with the Louisiana Supreme
Court that remains pending. While the events described by Kott were perhaps not of his
doing, he cannot establish “good cause” for the failure to exhaust: “’[a]ttorney ignorance or
inadvertence is not ‘cause’ because the attorney is the petitioner’s agent when acting, or
failing to act, in furtherance of the litigation, and the petitioner must ‘bear the risk of
attorney error.’” Hall v. Thaler, 504 Fed.Appx. 269, 284 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, ___ U.S.
___, 134 S.Ct. 385 (2013)(quoting Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 753, 111 S.Ct. 2546,
2566-67 (1991)). Absent a showing of good cause, stay and abeyance is not appropriate.
As for the State’s argument that the third claim set forth in Kott’s petition was not litigated
in his direct criminal appeal or advanced in post-conviction proceedings and is thus
unexhausted, Kott counters that the claim was the subject of pre-trial motion practice and,
4
ultimately, a writ application to the Louisiana Supreme Court through which state court
remedies were exhausted. See State v. Kott, 21 So.3d 270 (La. 2009); (Rec. doc. 1-4, pp. 35). Without the benefit of the state court record, the Court is unable to confirm whether
that is the case. Accordingly, the State is ordered to file a response herein and to produce
the record of Kott’s criminal proceedings within thirty days of entry of this order. Pending
that additional briefing and production of the state court record, the Court expresses no
opinion about the possible applicability of equitable tolling to Kott’s post-conviction claims.
Hello This is a Test
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of
July
, 2014.
MICHAEL B. NORTH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
5
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?