Hack v. Cassady
Filing
23
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS, 15 . Signed on 11/28/16 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes Mitra, Renea)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
NATHANIEL HACK,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN JAY CASSADY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16-04089-CV-W-ODS
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Pending is Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Proceedings. Doc. #15. For the following
reasons, the motion is granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
In 1996, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life
without parole. Doc. #1, at 1; Doc. #1-1. When he committed his crime, Petitioner was
under the age of eighteen. Doc. #1-3, at 1. His conviction was upheld on direct appeal.
Doc. #1, at 1. In 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the
Missouri Supreme Court, arguing his sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to the
United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
Doc. #1-3; Doc. #1-4. In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held mandatory life
imprisonment without parole for those under the age of eighteen at the time of their
crimes violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
132 S. Ct. at 2463-73.
On March 15, 2016, the Missouri Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus and found “petitioner shall be eligible to apply for parole after
serving 25 years’ imprisonment on his sentence of life without parole unless his
sentence is otherwise brought into conformity with Miller and Montgomery by action of
the governor or enactment of necessary legislation.” Doc. #1-2, at 2. Thereafter,
Petitioner filed a motion for rehearing with the Missouri Supreme Court and also filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Doc. #1; Doc. #15, at 2. Before this
Court, Petitioner argues he was denied due process when the Missouri Supreme Court
illegally altered his sentence and upheld his conviction for first degree murder, and he
was denied the right to a reasonable opportunity for release. Doc. #1, at 4-8.
In the meantime, on July 13, 2016, a new Missouri law went into effect.
Any person sentenced to a term of imprisonment for life without eligibility
for parole before August 28, 2016, who was under eighteen years of age
at the time of the commission of the offense or offenses, may submit to
the parole board a petition for a review of his or her sentence, regardless
of whether the case is final for purposes of appeal, after serving twentyfive years of incarceration on the sentence of life without parole.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 558.047.1(1). On July 19, 2016, the Missouri Supreme Court, on its
own motion and citing the new Missouri law, vacated its March 15, 2016 Order and
found Petitioner’s motion for rehearing was moot. Doc. #15-2. On September 19,
2016, Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Missouri
Supreme Court, arguing the new Missouri law is unconstitutional. Doc. #15-3; Doc.
#15-4. Petitioner’s second petition for writ of habeas corpus remains pending with the
Missouri Supreme Court.
In addition, Petitioner amended his petition in this matter, raising arguments
pertaining to the Missouri Supreme Court’s July 19, 2016 Order and the new Missouri
law. Doc. #20. Petitioner now seeks to stay this proceeding until the Missouri Supreme
Court issues a decision on his second petition for writ of habeas corpus.
II.
DISCUSSION
The enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) requires petitioners to completely exhaust their state habeas claims before a
federal district court may adjudicate those claims. Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 274
(2005) (citations omitted). The AEDPA also imposes a one-year statute of limitations on
the filing of federal petitions. Id. “Although the limitations period is tolled during the
pendency of a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral
review, the filing of a petition for habeas corpus in federal court does not toll the statute
of limitations.” Id. at 274-75 (citations and internal quotations omitted). Because of the
AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations and the exhaustion requirement, some
2
petitioners come to federal court with “mixed” petitions, meaning their petitions include
exhausted and non-exhausted claims. Id. at 275. If the district court dismisses the
petition because it contains non-exhausted claims and the dismissal occurs after the
one-year statute of limitations has run, the petitioner would be barred from returning to
federal court after exhausting the non-exhausted claims. Id. “Thus, whether a petition
ever receives federal review of his claims may turn on which district court happens to
hear his case.” Id.
The United States Supreme Court noted that district courts, in an attempt to
solve the problem, have chosen to stay such matters and hold them in abeyance while
the petitioner returns to state court to exhaust his previously unexhausted claims. Id.
Once those claims are exhausted, the district courts lift the stay and allow the petitioner
to then proceed in federal court. Id. at 275-76. The United States Supreme Court held
the AEDPA “does not deprive district courts” of their authority to issue stays. Id.
Here, the enactment of section 558.047.1(1) of the Missouri Revised Statutes as
well as Missouri Supreme Court’s July 19, 2016 Order have broadened the issues
initially raised by Petitioner. And his arguments associated with the new Missouri law,
the Missouri Supreme Court’s July 19, 2016 Order have not been exhausted at the state
level. Until Petitioner’s second petition for writ of habeas corpus has been disposed, a
stay of the proceedings before this Court is warranted. For these reasons, the Court
grants Petitioner’s motion to stay this matter.
III.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner’s motion to stay is granted. Petitioner is directed to file a status report
with this Court when the Missouri Supreme Court issues any decision related to his
state habeas proceedings. The status report should attach the Missouri Supreme
Court’s decision.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATE: November 28, 2016
3
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?