Opinion
2:21-cv-00544-SU
08-06-2021
IVAN BRIAN HAGGIN, Petitioner, v. BRAD CAIN, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Patricia Sullivan United States Magistrate Judge
On April 12, 2021, Petitioner filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus case challenging four Sexual Abuse convictions from Marion County dated June 8, 2015. In his Petition, he raises claims of trial court error pertaining to joinder, the disclosure of grand jury notes, and recusal. He also asserts that the prosecutor and/or his trial attorney withheld a letter from the victim's mother that was relevant to the victim's credibility. Petition (#2), pp. 4-5.
Petitioner asks the Court to stay this case to allow him time to focus on issues surrounding his impending release from physical custody, such as housing and employment. He also wishes additional time to seek legal counsel. These are not sufficient reasons to stay the action. Petitioner's supporting memorandum is not due until September 17, 2021. Should he need more time to file his brief as that date approaches, he should file a motion for extension of time.
Although not the basis for Petitioner's Amended Motion to Stay, the Court notes that Petitioner is currently pursuing a successive post-conviction relief (“PCR”) action in Malheur County (Case No. 21CV00140) wherein he alleges that his trial attorney was ineffective for advising him that a non-unanimous jury could convict him. He is also engaged in a Marion County action (Case No. 21CV05712) attempting to secure DNA testing of evidence. Petitioner's case regarding DNA testing is speculative, and his successive PCR case does not implicate the claims within the Petition such that a stay based upon this litigation would unnecessarily delay this case. For all of these reasons, the Court should decline to stay this action.
In Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S.Ct. 1390, 1397 (2020), the Supreme Court concluded that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial afforded criminal defendants encompasses a requirement that the jury's decision be unanimous. On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court concluded that Ramos does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review in federal court. Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S.Ct. 1547 (2021).
Even if Petitioner were to add a claim based upon his trial attorney's alleged failure to advise him that non-unanimous jury verdicts were not permissible, such a claim would lack merit given the state of the law as it existed at the time of Petitioner's trial and direct appellate proceedings. See Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S.Ct. 1547 (2021); Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner's Amended Motion for Stay (#12) should be denied, and the original, superseded Motion to Stay (#9) should be denied as moot.
SCHEDULING ORDER
This Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due within 14 days. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.