Wright v. Rivard
Filing
27
OPINION AND ORDER granting 21 Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NIGEL WRIGHT,
Petitioner,
Case No. 12-CV-14164
HON. ARTHUR J. TARNOW
v.
STEVEN RIVARD,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
Michigan state prisoner Nigel Wright filed a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his convictions for first-degree murder and carrying a
concealed weapon. On May 28, 2105, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
Conditionally Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court ordered that,
unless the state scheduled a new trial within 120 days, Petitioner must be unconditionally
released. Now before the Court is Respondent’s “Motion for Immediate Consideration
and Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.”
Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when a
decision ordering the release of a prisoner is on appeal, the prisoner must be released
unless the court orders otherwise. This rule creates “a presumption of release pending
appeal where a petitioner has been granted habeas relief.” O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557
U.S. 1301 (2009), citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 774 (1987), Fed. Rule App.
Proc. 23(c). This presumption can be overcome if the factors governing the issuance of a
stay weigh in favor of granting a stay. Id. In deciding whether to stay an order granting
habeas corpus relief pending appeal, a federal court should consider the following factors:
(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 will substantially injure the other parties
interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.
Hilton, 481 U.S. at 776.
The Court may also consider the risk that a petitioner may pose a danger to the
public if released. Id. at 777. Also to be considered is the state’s interest in “continuing
custody and rehabilitation pending a final determination of the case on appeal. . . ; it 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.” Id. The ultimate
determination “may depend to a large extent upon determination of the State’s prospects
of success in its appeal.” Id. Where the state establishes a strong likelihood of success on
the merits, or demonstrates a substantial case on the merits, continued custody is
permissible if the State will be irreparably injured absent a stay and the public interest
counsels in favor of a stay. Id. at 778. Where the state fails to make such a showing, the
stay should be denied. Id.
2
Under the first Hilton factor, the Court must consider whether the State has made a
strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. Respondent argues that the
appeal is likely to succeed on the merits because the Confrontation Clause claim was
procedurally defaulted and the Court failed to apply AEDPA deference to the state court’s
decision affirming Petitioner’s convcitions. To the contrary, the Court addressed the
procedural default issue and held that defense counsel’s ineffectiveness and the resulting
prejudice excused the default. In addition, the Court gave appropriate deference to the
state court’s decision as required by AEDPA.
Second, the Court must consider whether the State will be irreparably injured
absent a stay. Respondent argues that Petitioner presents a flight risk and his release
would pose a real and substantial danger to the public. First-degree murder is a gravely
serious offense for which Petitioner is serving a life sentence. Thus, the remaining
portion of the sentence to be served is indeed long. Further, it would be a waste of
limited judicial resources for the State to retry Petitioner while simultaneously appealing
this Court’s order to the Court of Appeals.
Third, the Court must consider whether issuance of a stay will substantially injure
Petitioner. While the Court notes that Petitioner may be injured by his continued
confinement pursuant to a conviction this Court has found to be constitutionally infirm,
such continued confinement will be addressed separately through a request for bond by
Petitioner.
3
Finally, the fourth Hilton factor requires consideration of where the public interest
lies. The public has a dual and sometimes competing interest in the State’s sentences
being enforced and in the State not incarcerating individuals in violation of the United
States Constitution. The public also has an interest in being protected from dangerous
individuals.
The Court finds, under the facts of this case, that Petitioner’s and Respondent’s
divergent interests are best reconciled by granting the motion for stay pending appeal.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Immediate
Consideration and Motion for Stay Pending Appeal [dkt. #21] is GRANTED and this
Court’s Opinion and Order Conditionally Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is
STAYED PENDING DISPOSITION OF APPEAL pending in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms
this Court’s judgment conditionally granting a writ of habeas corpus, the stay shall
automatically be lifted and the State must schedule a new trial within 120 DAYS of the
disposition of the appeal or Petitioner shall be unconditionally released.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: August 10, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record on August 10,
2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant
4
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?