Stokes v. Byars

Filing 116

ORDER denying the request to hold Ground Eight in abeyance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 6/29/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Sammie Louis Stokes, #5069, Petitioner, vs. Bryan P. Stirling, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Joseph McFadden, Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 1:16-845-RBH-SVH ORDER DENYING STAY OF GROUND EIGHT Petitioner Sammie Louis Stokes is an inmate at the Lieber Correctional Institution of the South Carolina Department of Corrections who filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [ECF Nos. 22, 51]. In a submission to this Court, ECF No. 96 at 15 n.4, Petitioner requested that his claim in Ground Eight be held in abeyance pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Davila v. Davis, 2017 WL 125677 (Jan. 13, 2017). In Ground Eight, Petitioner claims ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise an issue pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Petitioner has conceded that Ground Eight is procedurally defaulted, but he asserts that he can “overcome the procedural default by demonstrating his postconviction counsel was ineffective and that his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel has ‘some merit.’” ECF No. 96 at 15 (quoting Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012)). The United States Supreme Court has now issued an opinion in Davila v. Davis, 2017 WL 2722418 (June 26, 2017), declining to extend the Martinez exception to allow a federal court to hear a substantial, but procedurally defaulted, claim of appellate ineffectiveness when a prisoner’s state post-conviction counsel provides ineffective assistance by failing to raise it. In light of the issuance of the Davila decision, the undersigned denies the request to hold Ground Eight in abeyance. IT IS SO ORDERED. June 29, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate 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?