Batiste v. Cain

• Court: District Court, N.D. Mississippi
• Decided: December 17, 2024
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00108
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

BOBBY BATISTE PETITIONER V. CAUSE NO. 1:22-CV-00108-SA BURL CAIN and LYNN FITCH RESPONDENTS

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY CONSIDERATION OF HIS PENDING MOTION TO STAY AND ABEY FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion [72] to Stay Consideration of Motion to Stay and Abey Federal Proceedings Pending Resolution of Certiorari Review in Ronk v. Mississippi. Upon due consideration, the Court finds that the motion is not well-taken and should be denied. To provide some background, Petitioner first filed a Rhines1 motion to stay and abey these federal habeas proceedings so that he may exhaust state court remedies on August 29, 2023. See Doc. # 40. In that motion, Petitioner argued that numerous claims raised in his federal habeas petition were not exhausted due to failures of his court-appointed post-conviction counsel. See id. His argument was based primarily upon Grayson v. State,2 whereby the Mississippi Supreme Court seemingly crafted an exception to the state’s procedural bars for claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel in capital cases. See 118 So.3d at 126. Petitioner’s position was certainly justified as district courts in this state had routinely granted such motions—largely on the basis of Grayson—when ineffective-assistance-of-post-conviction-counsel claims had been raised. See Carr v. Cain, et al, No. 3:19-CV-274-DMB, Doc. # 47 (order granting in part and

1 Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). 2 118 So. 3d 118 (Miss. 2013). denying in part motion to stay) (Dec. 6, 2022); see also e.g., Ambrose v. Cain, No. 1:21-CV-302, 2022 WL 3499637 at *2 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 17, 2022). Then, on January 11, 2024, the Mississippi Supreme Court handed down its decision in Ronk v. State,3 in which it overruled Grayson “to the extent it excepted ineffective-assistance-of- post-conviction-counsel claims from the UPCCRA’s4 bars in death-penalty cases.” 391 So.3d at

815. The Ronk decision, however, was not official for some time as a motion for rehearing was filed. Thus, on February 14, 2024, reasoning that “the controlling state-law applicable to Petitioner’s arguments in support of a stay remain[ed] undecided”, the Court entered an Order denying Petitioner’s Rhines motion without prejudice and directing him to refile his motion (if he so chose) upon resolution of the Ronk proceedings. See Doc. # 58. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied rehearing in Ronk on July 18, 2024, and the mandate issued on August 23, 2024. See Orders, Ronk v. State, No. 2021-DR-00269-SCT. On October 4, 2024, Petitioner timely filed a second Rhines motion. Doc. # 69. In this motion, Petitioner relies on various exceptions to state procedural bars but also maintains his reliance on

Grayson. See id. Respondents filed their response in opposition on October 18, 2024, see Doc.# 71, and Petitioner filed his reply in support on October 25, 2024. See Doc. # 73. Petitioner now asks that the Court stay, or defer, consideration of his current Rhines motion pending resolution of certiorari review in Ronk. See Doc. # 72. In support, Petitioner notes that a certiorari petition on Ronk’s behalf has been filed in the United States Supreme Court. Id. at 3. Petitioner further emphasizes that the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi denied the State’s motion to lift the stay in Ronk’s federal habeas proceedings due to the pending cert petition. Id.

3 391 So. 3d 785 (Miss. 2024) 4 Mississippi Uniform Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act. While true, these circumstances do not warrant the relief requested. It is understandable for the stay in Ronk’s federal habeas proceeding to remain in place pending resolution of Ronk’s cert petition. Those proceedings are specific to Ronk, and the outcome surely would impact, one way or another, his concurrent post-conviction litigation, whether it be in state or federal court. The same cannot be said for the Petitioner’s current federal habeas proceedings Petitioner has

failed to demonstrate that resolution of the pending cert petition in Ronk would have any bearing on the merits of his Rhines motion nor the claims raised herein. The Rhines matter is now fully briefed and ripe for consideration, and the Court finds no reason to defer its consideration of the issues raised. Accordingly, the Court finds that Petitioner’s Motion [72] to Stay Consideration of Motion to Stay and Abey Federal Proceedings Pending Resolution of Certiorari Review in Ronk v. Mississippi should be DENIED. SO ORDERED this the 17th day of December, 2024.

/s/ Sharion Aycock UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE