Filed: Apr. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 19, 2012 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court GARRY THOMAS ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellee, No. 12-6094 v. (D.C. No. 5:12-cv-00140-R) (W.D. Okla.) RANDALL G. WORKMAN, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, KELLY, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, O’BRIEN, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, HOLMES and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. The district court ente
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 19, 2012 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court GARRY THOMAS ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellee, No. 12-6094 v. (D.C. No. 5:12-cv-00140-R) (W.D. Okla.) RANDALL G. WORKMAN, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, KELLY, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, O’BRIEN, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, HOLMES and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. The district court enter..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
April 19, 2012
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
GARRY THOMAS ALLEN,
Petitioner-Appellee,
No. 12-6094
v. (D.C. No. 5:12-cv-00140-R)
(W.D. Okla.)
RANDALL G. WORKMAN, Warden,
Oklahoma State Penitentiary,
Respondent-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, KELLY, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ,
O’BRIEN, TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, HOLMES and MATHESON, Circuit
Judges.
The district court entered a stay of petitioner’s imminent execution pending
its disposition of a habeas petition claiming that he is not competent to be
executed. See generally Panetti v. Quarterman,
551 U.S. 930 (2007); Ford v.
Wainwright,
477 U.S. 399 (1986). Respondent appealed from the order granting
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, the en banc court has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
the stay. After a divided panel decision vacated the stay, the en banc court voted
to take the matter under consideration and issued an order vacating the panel
decision. As we noted, the immediate result was that the district court’s stay
order remained in effect pending the en banc court’s resolution of respondent’s
appeal. Allen v. Workman, No. 12-6094, Order at 2 (Apr. 12, 2012) (en banc).
The Supreme Court subsequently denied respondent’s separate application to
vacate the district court’s stay order. Workman v. Allen, No. 11A975,
2012 WL
1232731, at *1 (U.S. Apr. 13, 2012).
Upon further review, the en banc court is now prepared to enter a decision
disposing of the appeal and hereby affirms the order staying execution entered by
the district court.
The order of the district court staying petitioner’s execution pending
disposition of his habeas petition is AFFIRMED. 1 The mandate shall issue
forthwith. The district court may immediately resume proceedings on the
underlying habeas petition.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
1
Judges O’Brien, Gorsuch, and Holmes dissent from the en banc court’s
decision.
-2-