Smith v. Beckstrom, No. 6:2012cv00237 - Document 29 (E.D. Ky. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED. The parties shall proceed with briefing as ordered by the Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2013 [DE 27]. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 06/07/2013.(MRS)cc: COR, Pro Se Filer
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION at LONDON WILLIAM DILLARD SMITH, Petitioner, v. GARY BECKSTROM, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. 6:12-cv-237-JMH-JGW MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER *** This matter is before the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), on William Dillard Smith s Objection to the Court s Order of 5/28/13 Allowing the Respondent to a Second Bite of the Apple by Allowing a Second Rule 5 Answer to the Writ of Habeas Corpus [DE 28]. In his Objection, Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge erred when he decided, sua sponte, to permit Respondent to file an amended response to his Petition after briefing was complete. For the reasons which follow, the Court disagrees. Smith filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 on December 7, 2012 [DE 1]. The Magistrate Judge ordered a response from Respondent by March 29, 2013. [DE 8.] Before a response was filed, Smith filed a Motion to Supplement [DE 11], which was granted [DE 12] in an order which provided Respondent additional time in which to file 1 an answer or other response to the Amended Petition [DE 13], no later than April 29, 2013. Respondent filed a Response and Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 16 and 17] on April 29, 2013, and Smith filed a Traverse and Reply to Respondent s Rule 5 Answer to Habeas Corpus Petition on May 9, 2013 [DE 24]. In that briefing, the parties presented arguments as to whether Petitioner s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were properly whether they before were the Court barred as a on the result present of Petition procedural or default because, under Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 1315 (2012), inadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings default may of a establish claim cause of for a ineffective prisoner s assistance procedural at trial. Notably, Respondent took the position that Martinez was limited to instances where ineffective assistance of counsel claims could only be raised on collateral review in a state s courts and would courts, not apply ineffective in this instance assistance of because, counsel in claims Kentucky could be brought on direct appeal. Then, sua sponte, the Magistrate Judge entered an order on May 28, 2013, permitting Respondent to file amended responsive briefing and, thereafter, an additional brief by Petitioer in light of the Supreme Court s decision in Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. ___, entered on May 28, 2 2013. The Magistrate Judge explained that additional briefing was necessary so that the Court could advised matter present be because Martinez exception Kentucky state as to the and, prisoners. the impact decision arguably, of Trevino expanded made Specifically, it on the narrow applicable Trevino the held to that where . . . [a] state procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial appeal, our holding in Martinez applies[.] counsel on direct Trevino, slip op., at p. 14. Petitioner takes the position that the Magistrate Judge s May 28, 2013, Order violates his due process rights and some aspect of fundamental fairness because it permitted additional briefing even though there were pleadings in place which had not been resolved. Specifically, he argues that in his Traverse and Reply, able he was to demonstrate that Respondent was not entitled to summary judgment and that Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1039 (2012), applied to Kentucky prisoners seeking a cause for procedural default and that, under Baze v. Parker, 371 F.3d 310, 320 (6th Cir. 2004), a respondent failing to raise his procedural default challenge waives it. The Court concludes, however, that the Magistrate Judge s Order was not in error. Frankly, it does not permit Respondent 3 another bite at the apple, as Petitioner has phrased Rather, the Court is bound to consider the impact of Trevino it. in this matter, even though it was handed down subsequent to the parties initial Magistrate briefing. analysis Judge Magistrate of to this Thus, request it revised matter Judge s in light Order is neither is reasonable briefs of that clearly which for the offer an decision. erroneous The nor contrary to law, and the undersigned judge declines to modify or set it aside. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, Petitioner s objections are OVERRULED. The parties shall proceed with briefing as ordered by the Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2013 [DE 27]. This the 7th day of June, 2013. 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
