Bosse v. Royal

Filing 38

ORDER. The current stay of this proceeding will continue for now, except that the parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report every six months apprising the Court of the status of Parish (Case No. 21-467) an d the status of Petitioner's anticipated certiorari petition. The six-month period will begin to run from the date of this Order. The parties are further ordered to immediately notify the Court if SCOTUS issues any ruling in Parish or reg arding Petitioner's anticipated certiorari petition, including any denial of certiorari petition, or if there is any other development that impacts the stay of this proceeding or the parties' views regarding the stay or status of this proceeding. See Order for all details. Signed by Judge Jodi W. Dishman on 10/15/2021. (knt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHAUN MICHAEL BOSSE,
Petitioner,
v.
JIM FARRIS, Warden,
Oklahoma State Penitentiary,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. CIV-18-00204-JD
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER

On August 12, 2020, the Court entered an Order [Doc. No. 29] continuing to stay
the proceedings in this action pending resolution by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals (“OCCA”) of Petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief (PCD-2019124). In that same Order, the Court directed the parties “to immediately notify the Court
if the OCCA issues a dispositive ruling regarding Petitioner’s application for postconviction relief or if there is any other development that impacts the stay of this
proceeding.”
Consistent with the Court’s Order, the parties filed a Joint Status Report on
October 12, 2021 [Doc. No. 37], notifying the Court that the OCCA had issued a
dispositive ruling denying Petitioner’s post-conviction application on October 7, 2021.
The parties further advised that Petitioner intends to seek certiorari review of the
OCCA’s opinion denying him post-conviction relief and will raise the same question
presented in Clifton Merrill Parish v. State of Oklahoma, et al., Case No. 21-467 (filed
Sept. 29, 2021), which is currently pending certiorari review before the United States

Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”). The parties request that the stay of this habeas action
continue until SCOTUS resolves the question presented in Parish, i.e., whether McGirt v.
Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) applies retroactively to convictions that were final
when McGirt was announced.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court
to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see
also Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005) (holding that the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act limits, but does not deprive, a district court of its inherent
authority to issue a stay). The Court has reviewed the parties’ Joint Status Report and is
mindful that a stay should be used in only limited circumstances in a federal habeas
proceeding. Here, considering the issues presented in this action and the issues pending
review by SCOTUS, the Court finds that the interests of judicial economy and comity are
best served by continuing to stay this proceeding until SCOTUS determines whether it
will hear the question presented in Parish and/or pending resolution of Petitioner’s
anticipated petition for a writ of certiorari of the OCCA’s opinion denying him postconviction relief. The Court may, however, reconsider the stay and revisit this Order
depending on developments.
Accordingly, the current stay of this proceeding will continue for now, except that
the parties are ordered to file a Joint Status Report every six months apprising the Court
of the status of Parish (Case No. 21-467) and the status of Petitioner’s anticipated
certiorari petition. The six-month period will begin to run from the date of this Order.
2

The parties are further ordered to immediately notify the Court if SCOTUS issues any
ruling in Parish or regarding Petitioner’s anticipated certiorari petition, including any
denial of certiorari petition, or if there is any other development that impacts the stay of
this proceeding or the parties’ views regarding the stay or status of this proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October 2021.

3