Smith v. Deville

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 29 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark L Hornsby on 2/11/2019. (crt,Keller, J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
SANDY SMITH, JR. #544410

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-cv-0121

VERSUS

JUDGE FOOTE

KEITH DEVILLE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Sandy Smith, Jr. (“Petitioner”) was charged in Caddo Parish state court with several
drug crimes. He eventually pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
and two counts of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He reserved the right
to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress, and he pursued that appeal through the
Supreme Court of Louisiana’s writ denial in October 2015. Petitioner did not file a postconviction application in state court at that time. Instead, he quickly filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus in this federal court.
The State filed a response to the petition in September 2018, which made the petition
ripe for decision. Petitioner then filed in November 2018 a Motion to Stay (Doc. 29) in
which he stated that he had (unspecified) newly discovered evidence and had filed an
application for post-conviction relief in the state courts. He asked the court to stay this
habeas proceeding to await the exhaustion of those additional claims so that he could
attempt to amend his federal petition and add them.
The stay and abeyance requested by Petitioner “should be available only in limited
circumstances.” Rhines v. Weber, 125 S.Ct. 1528 (2005). Courts should be cautious about

granting such stays because they undermine the AEDPA’s goal of streamlining federal
habeas proceedings by decreasing a petitioner’s incentive to exhaust all his claims in state
court prior to filing his federal petition. Id. A “stay and abeyance is appropriate when the
district court finds that there was good cause for the failure to exhaust the claim; the claim
is not plainly meritless; and there is no indication that the failure was for purposes of
delay.” Id.
Petitioner could have filed his post-conviction application within one year of the
finality of his conviction after direct appeal. That would have tolled the federal limitations
period and allowed him to present in one petition claims exhausted on both direct appeal
and the post-conviction process. That is the procedure used by most habeas petitioners
who file in this court. Petitioner elected instead to immediately file his federal petition
rather than take the time to ensure that he had exhausted all claims he wished to present in
it. Petitioner may argue that he did not first file a post-conviction application because he
did not have the newly discovered evidence referenced in his motion to stay, but the motion
gives no hint as to the nature of that evidence or why it could not have been reasonably
discovered earlier.
The burden is on Petitioner to show good cause to stay this case, which has already
been pending for more than three years. Petitioner does not give a detailed report as to the
status of his state post-conviction proceedings, but it could easily several months or even a
few years before all stages of those proceedings are completed, especially if they are as
convoluted as Petitioner’s direct appeal process, which was delayed and complicated by
various supplements and applications for rehearing. Accordingly, the best exercise of this
Page 2 of 3

court’s discretion in these circumstances is to deny a stay and encourage proper exhaustion
of all claims before a habeas petitioner comes to federal court. Accordingly, Petitioner’s
Motion to Stay (Doc. 29) is denied.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 11th day of February,
2019.

Page 3 of 3