Opinion
CV-20-00459-TUC-JAS
10-06-2022
Christopher Payne, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.
DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER
Honorable James A. Soto United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Petitioner Christopher Payne's unopposed motion to stay the briefing of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in light of the United States Supreme Court's grant of a writ of certiorari in Cruz v. Arizona, 142 S.Ct. 1412 (2022). (Doc. 45.)
“A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979); see Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110-11 (explaining that a stay may be appropriate where the resolution of issues in the other proceeding would assist in resolving the proceeding sought to be stayed).
Payne asserts that the Supreme Court's resolution of Cruz will bear directly on sentencing issues in Payne's proceedings involving the application of Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 162 (1994), which held that when future dangerousness is an issue in a capital sentencing determination, the defendant has a due process right to require that his jury be informed of his ineligibility for parole. In State v. Cruz, 251 Ariz. 203 (2021), the Arizona Supreme Court held that Lynch v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613 (2016) (per curiam), which applied Simmons to Arizona capital sentencing, did not represent a significant change in Arizona law under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g). The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether that holding “is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.” Cruz, 142 S.Ct. 1412. Argument in Cruz has been scheduled for November 1, 2022.
Because the decision in Cruz may substantively or procedurally impact Payne's claims, the Court finds good cause to stay the briefing of this petition. The Court adopts the parties' joint proposal to allow Payne to file a reply within 30 days of the Cruz decision and permit Respondents 30 days to file a surreply limited to issues raised by Cruz.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Payne's Unopposed Motion for Stay Pending Cruz v. Arizona (Doc. 45) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Payne shall file a reply in support of his pending habeas petition within 30 days of a decision in Cruz v. Arizona, No. 21-846 (U.S.).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents may have 30 days to file a surreply limited to issues raised by Cruz.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule for the evidentiary development of the petition within 30 days of a decision in Cruz.