Grayson v. Epps, et al

Filing 146

ORDER granting 139 Motion for Access by Expert Psychiatrist. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on March 18, 2022 (Rushing, Terryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BLAYDE GRAYSON

PETITIONER

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:04cv708-CWR

LYNN FITCH, Attorney General, State of
Mississippi, BURL CAIN, Commissioner,
Mississippi Department of Corrections, and
TIMOTHY MORRIS, Superintendent,
Mississippi State Penitentiary

RESPONDENTS

ORDER ALLOWING ACCESS
This matter came before the Court on the Petitioner’s Renewed Motion for Access by
Expert Psychiatrist [Doc. #139]. The Motion seeks authority for allowing entry by Dr. Donna S.
Maddox, an expert previously appointed by this Court, to examine the Petitioner, Blayde
Grayson, in connection with competency proceedings in state court. The basis for the Motion is
the litigation that began in state court when Grayson filed a pro se letter motion asking that the
members of the Mississippi Supreme Court “see that my execution should be carried out
forthwith.” Shortly after, one of the attorneys appointed in this Court to represent Grayson
notified the state court that there was a federal habeas case pending. Grayson’s attorney asked
that his pro se motion be dismissed.
The State filed a response to Grayson’s motion, and moved that the court remand the case
to the county of Grayson’s conviction, so that it could proceed with a determination of Grayson’s
competence to waive his appeals. Grayson’s attorneys responded to the State’s motion,
including a “Notice of Withdrawal of Pro Se Motion to Carry Out Execution Forthwith.” The
Mississippi Supreme Court, after noting that the Notice of Withdrawal did not contain an
affidavit or other written statement from Grayson, remanded the matter to the Circuit Court of

George County, so that Grayson can make a statement on the record as to whether he wishes to
proceed with his pro se motion and waive his appeals. 1 If Grayson affirms his desire to
withdraw his motion, then the Circuit Court is instructed to enter an order to that effect and
forward the order to the Supreme Court. If Grayson indicates that he wishes to proceed with the
motion, then the Circuit Court is to determine whether Grayson is competent to make that
decision. The Circuit Court has set that hearing for April 7, 2022.
Having reviewed the Motion and the parties’ related filings, the Court is of the opinion
that it is appropriate for Dr. Maddox to examine Grayson prior to the April 7 hearing, and the
Motion for Access will be granted. As was provided in the Court’s earlier Order Granting
Access, the visit will be scheduled and take place in accordance with the current applicable rules
and regulations in the Standard Operating Procedures of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Renewed Motion for Access by
Expert Psychiatrist [Doc. #139] is hereby granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of March, 2022.

s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A habeas case is not actually an “appeal,” but a separate civil action. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 423-24
(1963) (“[H]abeas corpus [is] an original ... civil remedy for the enforcement of the right to personal
liberty, rather than ... a stage of the state criminal proceedings ... or as an appeal therefrom.”; Hernandez
v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 424 n.12 (5th Cir. 2011).
1

2