Filed: Aug. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 50) (the "Motion"). The Motion involves the Court's Order of June 26, 2015 (Doc. 47), which stayed this case pending the final disposition of the proceedings in Hurst v. Florida, 135 S.Ct. 1531 (2015). Petitioner did not file a response to the Motion. Petitioner has not indicated which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure he relies on to assert the Motion. However, Fe
Summary: ORDER ROY B. DALTON, Jr. , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 50) (the "Motion"). The Motion involves the Court's Order of June 26, 2015 (Doc. 47), which stayed this case pending the final disposition of the proceedings in Hurst v. Florida, 135 S.Ct. 1531 (2015). Petitioner did not file a response to the Motion. Petitioner has not indicated which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure he relies on to assert the Motion. However, Fed..
More
ORDER
ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 50) (the "Motion"). The Motion involves the Court's Order of June 26, 2015 (Doc. 47), which stayed this case pending the final disposition of the proceedings in Hurst v. Florida, 135 S.Ct. 1531 (2015). Petitioner did not file a response to the Motion.
Petitioner has not indicated which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure he relies on to assert the Motion. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits reconsideration of a district court order or judgment based on limited number of circumstances.1
Respondents have not demonstrated a sufficient basis for reconsideration of the Court's Order of June 26, 2015. A district court may exercise its discretion to stay a case pending resolution of a related case in another court. See Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Communications, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000). Petitioner has raised a claim in his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), arguing that the "non-unanimous jury death-sentence recommendations [were] an insufficient and illegal basis for imposing the death penalty." (Doc. 1 at 38). The Supreme Court of the United States granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Hurst v. Florida, 135 S.Ct. 1531 (2015) limited to the following question: "Whether Florida's death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002)." Given the significance of the proceedings in Hurst, the Court finds that this case should be stayed pending final disposition of those proceedings.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 50) is DENIED.
2. This case shall remain administratively closed until further Order of the Court pending final disposition of the proceedings in Hurst. The parties shall notify the Court within THIRTY (30) DAYS after the final decision is rendered in Hurst.
DONE and ORDERED.
