Jones v. Vannoy

Opinion

UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SHREVEPORT DIVISION

MARION DALE JONES CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-01548

VERSUS JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

DARREL VANNOY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Marion Dale Jones’s (“Jones”) Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 28). On February 3, 2023, Magistrate Judge Hornsby denied Jones’s Motion to Stay Habeas Petition. See Record Document 27. Jones now appeals the denial of the motion on the grounds that the decision was factually incorrect. See Record Document 28. For the reasons set forth below, the Magistrate Appeal (Record Document 28) is DENIED, and Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s Order (Record Document 27) of February 3, 2023, is AFFIRMED. The decision by Magistrate Judge Hornsby to deny Jones’s motion to stay his habeas petition is a non-dispositive matter. This action is not listed in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as one of the dispositive motions that a magistrate judge may not conclusively decide. An order on a non-dispositive matter from the magistrate judge must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) & Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also Castillo v. Frank, 70 F.3d 382, 385 (5th Cir. 1995). The Court will review the Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions de novo and will review his factual findings for clear error. See Bedingfield v. Deen, No. 09-369, 2011 WL 1044397, at *1 (W.D. La. Mar. 18, 2011). Jones's Motion to Stay filed on February 1, 2023, is the second motion to stay filed in this action. See Record Documents 7 and 26. In the most recent order denying Jones’s Motion to Stay, Magistrate Judge Hornsby accurately stated that the stay requested by Jones “should be available only in limited circumstances.” See Record Document 27 at 2 (quoting Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 270, 125 S. Ct. 1528 (2005)). This Court agrees that Jones failed to show good cause for such a stay: Magistrate Judge Hornsby correctly noted that, in the motion, Jones merely reiterated the same arguments that are the subject of the pending Report and Recommendations. See Record Documents 24 and 27. Thus, the Court finds that Jones’s arguments in the Motion to Stay are best resolved through the original federal habeas petition that is addressed in the Report and Recommendations. Further, Jones’s arguments in this Magistrate Appeal are similarly mere reiterations of many of the same arguments made in the habeas petition. See Record Document 28. Staying the petition therefore has no potential to lead to habeas relief. Thus, this Court’s review of the record and the instant appeal do not evidence that Magistrate Judge Hornsby’s denial of Jones’s motion to stay was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Thus, the Order denying the Motion to Stay (Record Document 27) is AFFIRMED, and Jones's appeal (Record Document 28) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, on this the 22nd day of February, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT