Filed: Jan. 05, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER CARLTON W. REEVES , District Judge . This matter came before the Court sua sponte, on a review of the record. After filing his initial Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court, the Petitioner returned to state court by way of a successive petition for post-conviction relief, in order to exhaust his claims that his trial and previous post-conviction counsel were ineffective. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied relief on those claims. Grayson v. State, 118 So.3d 118 (Mis
Summary: ORDER CARLTON W. REEVES , District Judge . This matter came before the Court sua sponte, on a review of the record. After filing his initial Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court, the Petitioner returned to state court by way of a successive petition for post-conviction relief, in order to exhaust his claims that his trial and previous post-conviction counsel were ineffective. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied relief on those claims. Grayson v. State, 118 So.3d 118 (Miss..
More
ORDER
CARLTON W. REEVES, District Judge.
This matter came before the Court sua sponte, on a review of the record. After filing his initial Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court, the Petitioner returned to state court by way of a successive petition for post-conviction relief, in order to exhaust his claims that his trial and previous post-conviction counsel were ineffective. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied relief on those claims. Grayson v. State, 118 So.3d 118 (Miss. 2013). Following that denial, Grayson filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, in which he asks this Court to review the latest state court opinion. The Respondents have filed an Answer to that Petition.
In order to fully address Grayson's most recent claims, this Court must review the pleadings that were filed in state court relative to his successive petition for post-conviction relief. The Court has reviewed the state court docket for those proceedings(Grayson v. State, 2012-DR-0059-SCT), and it is of the opinion that the following filings are necessary for this Court's review:
Motion 2012-77; Motion for Leave to File Successor Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and all related responses, replies, and briefs; and
Motion 2012-191; Motion for Access and all related responses, replies, and briefs.
In accordance with Rule 5(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Respondents should file those documents with the Court. It is not necessary for the Respondents to file copies of the requests for extensions of time related to these motions; however, if it is easier to do so, they may file the entire record of Case No. 2012-DR-0059-SCT.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Respondents file either the entire record in Case No. 2012-DR-00059-SCT, or the portions described above, on or before February 5, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
