Pitchford v. Hall et al

Filing 227

ORDER granting 219 Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Michael P. Mills on 1/12/24. (jla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
TERRY PITCHFORD
V.

PETITIONER
NO. 4:18-CV-00002-MPM

BURL CAIN, MDOC Commissioner; and
LYNN FITCH, Attorney General for the state of Mississippi

RESPONDENTS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
This matter comes before the Court on the Respondents’ motion to stay this Court’s order
and final judgment granting Petitioner habeas relief. Doc. #219. On December 12, 2023, the Court
entered its memorandum opinion and order and final judgment in which it found Petitioner was
entitled to habeas relief on his Batson claim,1 and requiring Respondents to release Petitioner from
custody unless he is granted a new trial within 180 days. See Doc. #s 216, 217. Respondents have
already filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court’s Judgment; see Doc. # 218, and they seek a stay
pending resolution of that appeal. Upon due consideration of the arguments presented in the
motion, Petitioner’s response, and Respondents’ reply, and the nature of this case, the Court finds
that the motion should be granted. See Chamberlin v. Cain, et al., No. 2:11-cv-00072-CWR, Doc.
# 69 (Order Granting Motion to Stay)(S.D. Miss. May 27, 2015) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481
U.S. 770, 778 (1987)).
The Court, however, makes clear that it is not granting this motion because it agrees with
Respondents’ arguments as to Petitioner’s Batson claim. The Court further finds it appropriate to
note that, upon review of the arguments and statements made in the instant motion, it appears that
Respondents misunderstand—at least to an extent—the rationale and basis of the Court’s decision.

1

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

The Court did not rely on state law in reaching its conclusion, but instead, merely found that other
state court cases, one in particular, should have been included in the state appellate court’s
consideration of the totality of the circumstances, and a totality of the circumstances analysis is
required under Batson. See Chamberlin v. Fisher, 885 F.3d 832, 843 (5th Cir. 2018). It bears
repeating that no state court performed a full Batson analysis in Petitioner’s case, and that failure
was, in the opinion of this Court, clearly error. The outcome of an appeal, however, is never
certain; thus, the Court believes it is in the best interests of all parties to stay the execution of its
judgment until such time as the appellate proceedings have concluded.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Respondents’ motion [219] to stay is hereby
GRANTED, and execution of the Court’s Judgment is stayed pending resolution of Respondents’
appeal. Respondents are ordered to notify this Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of the
mandate by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disposing of the appeal of this
case.
SO ORDERED, this the 12th day of January, 2024.
/s/Michael P. Mills
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

2