Chisley v. Kauffman et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM ORDER - IT IS ORDERED THAT the respondents file a response to the petition addressing any outstanding exhaustion issues, as well as the merits of Chisleys claims, on or before May 9, 2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on April 11, 2019. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAVON CHISLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN
KAUFFMAN, et al.
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 4:16-CV-1980

(Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The background to this order is as follows:
The petitioner, LaVon Chisley, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with
this court on September 29, 2016. (Doc. 1). Chisley was convicted in 2007 of firstdegree murder and was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment. The
petitioner now seeks to have his first-degree murder conviction vacated and a new
trial ordered, based on his claims that the trial court denied him a fair trial, that he
received an illegal sentence, and that both his trial and appellate counsel rendered
ineffective assistance. (Id.)
The respondents filed their response to this petition on January 27, 2017,
arguing that Chisley’s petition was unexhausted. (Doc. 9-1). At the time the response
was filed, Chisley’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal was pending in the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court. (Id., at 11). Subsequently, on January 31, 2017, the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Chisley’s Petition for Allowance of Appeal.
Commonwealth v. Chisley, 165 A.3d 897 (Pa. 2017). Thus, any claims that Chisley
raised in his appeals have now completed one round of the state appellate process.
See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45 (1999) (finding that a petitioner
properly exhausts claims in state court “by invoking one complete round of the
State’s established appellate review process”).
Given that Chisley’s claims have now gone through the state appellate
process, in order to thoroughly review the instant habeas petition, IT IS ORDERED
THAT the respondents file a response to the petition addressing any outstanding
exhaustion issues, as well as the merits of Chisley’s claims, on or before May 9,
2019.

So Ordered this 11th day of April, 2019.
/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

2