Thacker v. Colson

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 6 MOTION TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE. Signed by Judge J. Daniel Breen on 10/23/12. (Breen, J.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION

)
(
(
)
)
(
Petitioner,
(
)
)
(
v.
(
)
)
(
ROLAND COLSON, Warden, Riverbend (
)
Maximum Security Institution,
(
)
)
(
Respondent.
(
)
)
(
STEVEN RAY THACKER,

No. 12-2784-JDB-egb

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE CASE
On September 27, 2012, Petitioner Steven Ray Thacker filed a
motion to administratively close the case pending a decision on his
United States Supreme Court petition for certiorari in Thacker v.
Workman, No. 12A218.

(Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 6.)

2012, Respondent Roland Colson filed a response.

On October 9,
(D.E. 9.)

On December 23, 1999, Petitioner kidnaped, raped and killed
Thacker v. Tennessee, No. W2010-01637-

Laci Dawn Hill in Oklahoma.

CCA-R3-PD, 2012 WL 1020227, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 23, 2012),
app. denied (Aug. 16, 2012).

Thacker fled to Dyersburg, Tennessee

where the stolen vehicle he was driving broke down.

Id.

He killed

Ray Patterson, a tow truck driver who came to his aid, when
Patterson learned that Petitioner was attempting to pay with a
stolen credit card.

Id.

Thacker was convicted of first degree

murder for killing Patterson and sentenced to death.
conviction is the subject of the instant petition.

Id.

That

Petitioner was convicted for first-degree malice aforethought
murder, kidnaping, and first-degree rape for the incident with Hill
and sentenced to death in Oklahoma.
F.3d 820, 822 (10th Cir. 2012).
affirmed the denial of
6 at 1-2.)

See Thacker v. Workman, 678

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

habeas relief.

Id. at 822, 849.

(See D.E.

The inmate must file his petition for certiorari with

the United States Supreme Court by November 8, 2012.

(Id. at 2.)

He argues that, if the Supreme Court denies certiorari, events in
Oklahoma will render the instant habeas proceeding moot because
Oklahoma will proceed with his execution.

(Id.)

Respondent maintains that an administrative closure would serve
to delay the just and speedy adjudication of the present action in
favor of a separate action in Oklahoma.

(D.E. 9 at 1.)

He asserts

that Petitioner asks this Court to wait on the determination of a
petition for writ of certiorari that Petitioner has not yet filed.
(Id.)

Respondent avers that the timing of a determination on the

petition for certiorari is uncertain.

(Id. at 3.)

Further, there

is no indication that Oklahoma has set an execution date.

(Id.)

Respondent relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 which calls
for the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of the instant
action as support for the denial of Petitioner’s motion.

(Id. at

3-4.)
The Supreme Court has long recognized a state’s interest in
securing the finality of its judgments.

Dist. Atty’s Office for

Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 98, 129 S. Ct. 2308,
2337, 174 L. Ed. 2d 38 (2009); see Maples v. Thomas, ___ U.S. ___,

2

132 S. Ct. 912, 929, 181 L. Ed. 2d 807 (2012) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting) (federal habeas review “imposes significant costs on the
States” and undermines “their practical interest in the finality of
their criminal judgments”).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) has the objective of encouraging
finality and reducing delay in the execution of criminal sentences,
especially in capital cases.

See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269,

276-77, 125 S. Ct. 1528, 1534, 161 L. Ed. 2d 440 (2005) (citing
Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 206, 123 S. Ct. 1398, 155 L. Ed.
2d

363

(2003)).

petitioners,

have

Capital
an

petitioners,

interest

in

in

contrast

delaying

federal

to

most

habeas

proceedings, prolonging incarceration, and avoiding execution. See
id. at 277-78, 123 S. Ct. at 1535.
Administrative closure is a docket management device which
allows the removal of cases from the court’s docket in appropriate
situations. See In re Heritage Sw. Med. Group PA, 464 F. App’x 285,
287 (5th Cir. 2012); Shewchun v. Holder, 658 F.3d 557, 567 (6th Cir.
2011),

reh'g

denied

(Oct.

26,

2011).

The

effect

of

an

administrative closure is the same as a stay, except that it affects
the count of active cases pending on the court’s docket.

Mire v.

Full Spectrum Lending Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2004).
District courts should not stay cases where the action would not be
compatible with AEDPA’s purposes.

Rhines, 544 U.S. at 276, 125 S.

Ct. at 1534.
Thacker’s instant habeas petition is ripe for review.

The

Oklahoma convictions and sentence are not relevant to the resolution

3

of the instant petition.

Administrative closure of this case would

result in a stay for an indefinite period of time.

Petitioner has

not presented good cause to delay the resolution of federal habeas
proceedings and the finality of the Tennessee court’s judgment.
Petitioner’s motion to administratively close the case is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of October 2012.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4