Grayson v. Epps, et al

Filing 66

ORDER requiring Respondents to file state court record, or excerpts described in the Order, of Case. No. 2012-DR-0059-SCT on or before February 6, 2016. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on January 5, 2016 (Rushing, Terryl)

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

PETITIONER

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:04CV708CWR

MARSHALL L. FISHER, Commissioner,
Mississippi Department of Corrections;
EARNEST LEE, Superintendent,
Mississippi State Penitentiary and JIM
HOOD, Attorney General of the State
of Mississippi

RESPONDENTS

ORDER
This matter came before the Court sua sponte, on a review of the record. After filing his
initial Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court, the Petitioner returned to state court by way
of a successive petition for post-conviction relief, in order to exhaust his claims that his trial and
previous post-conviction counsel were ineffective. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied relief on
those claims. Grayson v. State, 118 So. 3d 118 (Miss. 2013). Following that denial, Grayson filed
an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, in which he asks this Court to review the latest
state court opinion. The Respondents have filed an Answer to that Petition.
In order to fully address Grayson’s most recent claims, this Court must review the pleadings
that were filed in state court relative to his successive petition for post-conviction relief. The Court
has reviewed the state court docket for those proceedings(Grayson v. State, 2012-DR-0059-SCT),
and it is of the opinion that the following filings are necessary for this Court’s review:
Motion 2012-77; Motion for Leave to File Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and
all related responses, replies, and briefs; and
Motion 2012-191; Motion for Access and all related responses, replies, and briefs.

In accordance with Rule 5(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, Respondents should file those documents with the Court. It is not necessary for the
Respondents to file copies of the requests for extensions of time related to these motions; however,
if it is easier to do so, they may file the entire record of Case No. 2012-DR-0059-SCT.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Respondents file either the entire record in Case
No. 2012-DR-00059-SCT, or the portions described above, on or before February 5, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 5th day of January, 2016.

/s/ Carlton W. Reeves
Hon. Carlton W. Reeves
United States District Judge

2