Lind v. Ballard
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER the Court will stay this case until such time as the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals' August 31, 2015 opinion regarding Petitioner's petition becomes final; STAYS this case until further order of the C ourt; and directing this case removed from the Court's active docket; Petitioner to notify the Court within 30 days of the date when the WVSCA's 8/31/2015 opinion in his case becomes final pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 26; this stay shall extend no later than 60 days from the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order; if Petitioner has not provided the ordered notice herein to the Court by the end of that 60-day period, the Court may end the stay and rul e on the exhaustion issue that is the focus of Magistrate Judge Eifert's 3/26/2015 20 Proposed Findings and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 9/14/2015. (cc: petitioner, pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (taq)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
JONATHAN JOSEPH LIND,
Petitioner,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-26284
DAVID BALLARD,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”), (ECF No. 1), Petitioner’s Motion to Waive
Exhaustion Due to Inordinate Delay (the “Motion to Waive”), (ECF No. 3), Petitioner’s Motion
for an Evidentiary Hearing (the “Motion for Hearing”), (ECF No. 4), Petitioner’s Motion for
Appointment of Counsel (the “Motion for Appointment”), (ECF No. 5), and Petitioner’s
Notification Letter, which the Clerk interpreted as a Motion to Waive Exhaustion Due to Inordinate
Delay (the “Request Letter”), (ECF No. 15). By standing order entered May 7, 2014, and filed in
this case on October 10, 2014, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl
A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and recommendations for disposition (“PF&R”).
(ECF No. 9.) On March 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Eifert entered her PF&R, which recommends
that the Court deny the Motion to Waive as moot, deny the Motion for Appointment and the Motion
for Hearing as premature, grant the Request Letter insofar as it asks the Court to deny the Motion
to Waive, deny the Request Letter insofar as it asks for a stay and abeyance of this matter, and
1
dismiss the Petition without prejudice. (ECF No. 20 at 2.) In the PF&R, Magistrate Judge Eifert
provided the following rationale, in part, regarding her recommendations:
In summary, [Petitioner] has not provided any justification for a stay and abeyance.
[Petitioner’s] state habeas proceeding is progressing through the appeal process. He
is represented by counsel in that action, and there are no issues about the timeliness
of his state petition. He will have adequate time to re-file his federal habeas petition,
if necessary, after the WVSCA has had an opportunity to fully examine and address
[Petitioner’s] constitutional claims. Bearing in mind that the practice of staying a
section 2254 petition should be done infrequently and only for good cause, the
undersigned find[s] no basis upon which to recommend a stay and abeyance of this
action. Given that [Petitioner’s] section 2254 petition was filed too early, his
motions for the appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing are likewise
premature.
(Id. at 11.)
On April 3, 2015, Petitioner timely filed objections to the PF&R (the “Objections”). (ECF
No. 21.) In the Objections, Petitioner notes that his appeal was still pending before the West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (the “WVSCA”), but recommended a stay in this matter
pending that court’s ruling. (See id.)
On September 4, 2015, Petitioner filed an additional motion―Motion to Remand to
Magistrate Court for Further Proceedings, and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (the “Motion
to Refer”). (ECF No. 22.) In this motion, Petitioner asserts that “[t]he Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia denied [his] appeal” on “August 31, 2015.” (Id. at 2.) As such, Petitioner argues
that “[a]ll grounds are now exhausted, and ripe for review by the Magistrate Court” and requests
that the Court re-refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Eifert. (Id.)
As Petitioner correctly notes, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals entered a
memorandum opinion and order in Petitioner’s case on August 31, 2015. See Lind v. Ballard, No.
14‒0116, 2015 WL 5125884 (W. Va. Aug. 31, 2015). In this opinion, the WVSCA “affirm[ed] the
2
circuit court’s December 1, 2014 order” denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id.
at *7. However, this opinion did not become final on August 31, 2015. The West Virginia Rules
of Appellate Procedure state the following, in relevant part, regarding when decisions of the
WVSCA become final:
(a) Effect of Mandate. Issuance of the mandate terminates jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in an action before this Court, unless the Court has provided by
order pursuant to Rule 25(a) that a petition for rehearing may be filed after a
mandate has issued. Unless otherwise provided, an opinion of the Court or
memorandum decision of the Court considering the merits of a case is not final until
the mandate has been issued.
(b) Time for Issuance, Contents. The timely filing of a petition for rehearing will
stay issuance of the mandate. If a petition for rehearing is not timely filed, the Clerk
will issue the mandate as soon as practicable after the passage of thirty days from
the date the opinion or memorandum decision is released, unless the time is
shortened or enlarged by order. The mandate will contain a summary description
of the judgment of the Court, and any direction as to costs or other matters. The
mandate must be read and construed together with the opinion or memorandum
decision in the case. If a petition for rehearing is denied, the Clerk will issue the
mandate within seven days of the date of the order refusing the rehearing petition,
unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order.
W. Va. R. App. P. 26(a) & (b) (emphasis added). West Virginia Rule of Appellate procedure 25(a),
in turn, provides that “[a] petition for rehearing may be filed within thirty days of the release of
any memorandum decision or opinion of this Court that passes upon the merits of an action, unless
the time for filing is shortened or enlarged by order.”
Under these rules, the WVSCA’s August 31, 2015 opinion in Petitioner’s case initiated a
thirty-day grace period for the filing of petitions for rehearing. See W. Va. R. App. P. 25(a). Only
once that thirty-day period elapses will the WVSCA’s Clerk issue “as soon as [is] practicable” the
WVSCA’s mandate in Petitioner’s case. See W. Va. R. App. P. 26(b). This mandate, in turn, will
3
then make the WVSCA’s opinion final. See W. Va. R. App. P. 26(a). Until that time, however, the
WVSCA retains jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal. See id.
As the WVSCA ruled on Petitioner’s appeal―but that opinion is presently in the thirtyday grace period for petitions for rehearing―the Court will stay this case until such time as the
WVSCA’s August 31, 2015 opinion regarding Petitioner’s petition becomes final. Cf. Rhines v.
Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005) (“District courts do ordinarily have authority to issue stays where
such a stay would be a proper exercise of discretion.” (citations omitted)).
Accordingly, the Court STAYS this case until further order of the Court. The Court
ORDERS the Clerk to remove this case from the Court’s active docket.
The Court further ORDERS Petitioner to notify the Court within 30 days of the date when
the WVSCA’s August 31, 2015 opinion in his case becomes final pursuant to West Virginia Rule
of Appellate Procedure 26. The Court cautions Petitioner that this stay shall extend no later than
60 days from the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. If Petitioner has not provided the
above-ordered notice to the Court by the end of that 60-day period, the Court may end the stay and
rule on the exhaustion issue that is the focus of Magistrate Judge Eifert’s March 26, 2015 PF&R.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER:
4
September 14, 2015
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?