Filed: Jul. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This action is before the Court on the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, wherein this Court's order denying Petitioner's federal habeas petition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to this Court with instructions "to complete the final two steps of the Batson proceedings." (Doc. 55 at 12; Doc. 56 at 14). In light of this mandate, the Court finds that briefing and an evidentiary hearing are necessar
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge. This action is before the Court on the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, wherein this Court's order denying Petitioner's federal habeas petition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to this Court with instructions "to complete the final two steps of the Batson proceedings." (Doc. 55 at 12; Doc. 56 at 14). In light of this mandate, the Court finds that briefing and an evidentiary hearing are necessary..
More
ORDER
KRISTI K. DuBOSE, District Judge.
This action is before the Court on the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, wherein this Court's order denying Petitioner's federal habeas petition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to this Court with instructions "to complete the final two steps of the Batson proceedings." (Doc. 55 at 12; Doc. 56 at 14). In light of this mandate, the Court finds that briefing and an evidentiary hearing are necessary in this case.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the State shall file a brief addressing Petitioner's Batson claim on or before August 3, 2012, and Petitioner shall file a response to the State's brief on or before August 24, 2012.1 It is further ORDERED that an evidentiary hearing in this matter is scheduled for September 20, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5A.
With respect to briefing and the hearing, the parties are INSTRUCTED to submit evidentiary support for their arguments, including evidence in the state court record upon which they rely and new evidence as appropriate. The Court is aware of the evidentiary limitations placed upon federal courts assessing a habeas claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as set forth by the Supreme Court in Cullen v. Pinholster, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (April 4, 2011). However, because the Eleventh Circuit has previously completed the § 2254(d) review in this case and has determined that the state court decision violated the standards of § 2254(d)(1), see Madison, 2012 WL 1450039, at *4, the Court finds that Pinholster is no longer applicable.2 At this stage of the proceedings, the Court will conduct a de novo review of Petitioner's Batson claim, unconstrained by Pinholster. See Skipwith v. McNeil, 2011 WL 1598829, *5 (S.D. Fla. April 28, 2011) ("[n]ow that the section 2254(d) hurdle has been cleared, the Court agrees with Judge White's reasons for holding an evidentiary hearing and considers Skipwith's ineffective assistance of counsel claim on its merits.") (emphasis added); Werber v. Milligan, 2012 WL 1458098, *8 (N.D. Ohio April 26, 2012) (recognizing that Pinholster "allow[s] . . . an evidentiary hearing after a reviewing court determines that a petitioner's claim satisfies § 2254(d).") (emphasis in original); Watson v. Cate, 2011 WL 6202788, *54 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2011) ("If Petitioner can satisfy the provisions of § 2254(d) by showing that, based on the state court record, the state court adjudication of his claim involved an objectively unreasonable application of Strickland, then Pinholster arguably would not preclude further development of the record in order to determine whether Petitioner actually received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.") (emphasis in original); Hearn v. Ryan, 2011 WL 1526912, *2 (D. Ariz. April 21, 2011) ("[T]his Court made a final decision concerning the unreasonableness of the state court's decision, based on the state court record, and that decision is not dependent on the outcome of the evidentiary hearing. Having determined Petitioner's Faretta claim satisfied § 2254(d)(1), it fell to this Court to resolve the claim . . . Pinholster does not prevent this Court from considering evidence of express consent presented at the evidentiary hearing."); Pao Lo v. Kane, 2011 WL 2462932, *32 (E.D. Cal. June 17, 2011) (holding that, because the state court's decision failed to meet the criteria of § 2254(d)(1), "Pinholster [was] inapplicable," and the "reviewing court must conduct a de novo review of the applicable habeas claim.").
It is ORDERED that the STATE CUSTODIAN SHALL PRODUCE Petitioner Vernon Madison pursuant to the writ of habeas corpus for the evidentiary hearing on September 20, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 5A of the U.S. Courthouse.
The CLERK is DIRECTED to prepare timely writs of habeas corpus in order to ensure Petitioner Vernon Madison's presence for the September 20, 2012 evidentiary hearing.
The CLERK is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Order and the accompanying writ of habeas corpus to the U.S. Marshal Service for compliance with same.
