Chamberlin v. Epps et al
ORDER denying 105 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Petitioner to report within 30 days whether she intends to return to state court to exhaust issues. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on January 11, 2022 (Rushing, Terryl)
Case 2:11-cv-00072-CWR Document 108 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
LISA JO CHAMBERLIN
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:11cv72-CWR
LYNN FITCH, Attorney General of the State
of Mississippi and BURL CAIN, Commissioner,
Mississippi Department of Corrections
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS UNDER RULE 12(c)
The Respondents have filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Fed. R. Civ.
P. Rule 12(c) [Doc. #105], seeking an Order denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed by Lisa Jo Chamberlin. According to the Respondents, this case became ripe for a decision
after supplemental briefing was completed in 2020. However, shortly after that briefing was
completed, Chamberlin moved for the appointment of supplemental counsel to review her case
and determine whether her current attorneys, who represented her during her state postconviction proceedings, were ineffective. Chamberlin suggested Carol Camp as supplemental
counsel. This Court granted the Motion, but stated:
Camp will be given a finite amount of time to identify the ineffectiveness issues,
if any, and inform the Court whether Chamberlin wishes to pursue them. Should
there be issues that need resolution, the Court will stay this case to permit a return
to state court. Counsel are advised that regular reporting will be required, and
failure to report, or evidence of undue delay in state court, could result in the stay
in this case being vacated and the case returned to the active docket.
Order Granting Mot. Appt. Counsel, Doc. #100, 5.
Although Camp was appointed, the Court failed to give her a date by which to complete
her review. That will be remedied; the review must be completed, and counsel must report to the
Court whether there are issues that Chamberlin wishes to pursue in state court, within 30 days
Case 2:11-cv-00072-CWR Document 108 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2
after the entry of this Order. With regard to the requirement of regular reporting, that is a
condition regularly attached to cases that return to state court for exhaustion. It is merely a tool
for the Court to keep up with the status of the case in state court. Otherwise, reporting is not a
requirement during the pendency of the federal habeas case, and the Court expects to get no
“report” from Chamberlin other than notice of whether she intends to return to state court to
pursue unexhausted claims.
Finally, the Respondents argue that they should be given a copy of any reports submitted
by Camp. Camp is not functioning as an agent of the Court, but as Chamberlin’s counsel, and
she will not be required to submit any information to the Respondents. Moreover, as stated
above, the Court does not expect reports from Camp, but only requires notice with regard to
whether Chamberlin intends to return to state court. That notice should be filed with the Court,
and the Respondents will automatically get a copy of it.
The Court is sympathetic to the Respondents’ concern about delay in this matter, and
implementation of these directives should get this case back on track. Entry of judgment at this
time would be premature, particularly if there are unexhausted issues that must be litigated in
state court. For these reasons, the Respondents’ Motion will be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Respondents’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(c) [Doc. #105] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within 30 days of the entry of this Order,
Chamberlin notify the Court whether she intends to return to state court to exhaust any
IT IS SO ORDERED, this the 11th day of January, 2022.
s/ Carlton W. Reeves
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?