Robinson v. Lewis, No. 4:2017cv00004 - Document 59 (E.D. Mo. 2023)
Court Description: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 52 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is given thirty (30) days to amend his petition to delete the unexhaus ted claims, rather than returning to state court to exhaust his claims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send to Petitioner a copy of the Court's form for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Compel the Court to Respond [Doc. No. 54 ] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Further Relief [Doc. No. 58 ] is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Co urt shall send to Petitioner a copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2020 [Doc. No. 27] and Respondent's Status Report filed on June 2, 2022 [Doc. No. 51]. (Amended/Supplemental Pleadings due by 3/5/2023.) Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 2/3/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment, # 3 Attachment)(HMA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robinson v. Lewis Doc. 59 Att. 3 Case: 4:17-cv-00004-HEA Doc. #: 51 Filed: 06/02/22 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 1604 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION AARON ROBINSON, Petitioner, v. JASON LEWIS, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:17-CV-00004-HEA Status Report in Response to Court Order Respondent states as follows as a status report in response to this Court’s May 4, 2022 order. 1. On March 26, 2020, this Court ordered this matter stayed so that Petitioner Aaron Robinson could exhaust claims regarding the application of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2015), to his sentence in light of the Missouri General Assembly’s enactment of Senate Bill 590, which codified Missouri statute section 558.047. 2. On May 4, 2022, this Court ordered the parties to file a status report regarding Robinson’s efforts to exhaust his claims in state court. 3. Since the time of this Court’s March 26, 2020 order, neither Respondent nor the Attorney General, who represents Respondent, has received notice 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case: 4:17-cv-00004-HEA Doc. #: 51 Filed: 06/02/22 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 1605 of any state court case filed by, or on behalf of, Robinson related to his convictions and sentences. 4. Undersigned counsel has conducted a search of the Missouri courts’ centralized electronic case management and filing system, and undersigned counsel has been unable to locate any case filed by, or on behalf of, Robinson related to his convictions and sentences since the Court’s March 26, 2020 order. 5. At this time, Respondent is unaware of any efforts made by Robinson to exhaust his state remedies during the stay of proceedings the Court ordered on March 26, 2020. 6. At this time, Respondent is unaware of any reason the proceedings should remain stayed, as it appears Robinson has failed to comply with the deadlines set by the Court’s March 26, 2020 order which required Robinson to seek relief in state court within thirty days. Conclusion For these reasons, unless Robinson shows cause to continue the stay of proceedings, Respondent requests that the Court vacate the stay of proceedings and decide the matter on the pleadings already before the Court. 2 Case: 4:17-cv-00004-HEA Doc. #: 51 Filed: 06/02/22 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 1606 Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. SCHMITT Attorney General /s/ Andrew J. Crane Andrew J. Crane Assistant Attorney General Missouri Bar #68017 PO Box 899 Jefferson City, MO 65102 (573) 751-0264 (573) 751-2096 Fax Andrew.Crane@ago.mo.gov Attorneys for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I filed this document and any attachments using the Court’s CM/ECF system on June 2, 2022. That day, I mailed a copy of the same to: Aaron Robinson, DOC #1209619 Southeast Correctional Center 300 East Pedro Simmons Drive Charleston, MO 63834 /s/Andrew Crane ANDREW J. CRANE Assistant Attorney General 3
]]>
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.
