Pritchett v. Gentry ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Shawn Pritchett, Case No.: 2:17-cv-01694-JAD-DJA 4 Petitioner Order Denying Motion to Stay Case and 5 v. Granting in part Extension to File Reply Brief 6 Jo Gentry, et. al., [ECF No. 105] 7 Respondents 8 Nevada inmate Shawn Pritchett brings this counseled habeas corpus action under 28 9 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2010 Nevada state-court convictions for conspiracy to commit 10 murder, first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, and robbery with the use of a 11 deadly weapon.1 Pritchett moves to stay this case so that an unrelated case challenging Brown v. 12 McDaniel2 can be decided by the Nevada Supreme Court.3 Alternatively, Pritchett asks for an 13 extension of time to file his reply to his habeas petition.4 I find that a stay is unwarranted under 14 these circumstances but good cause exists to grant Pritchett a modest extension to file his reply. 15 Background 16 Following a jury trial, Pritchett was convicted in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court 17 (Clark County) of conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree murder with the use of a deadly 18 weapon, and robbery with the use of a deadly weapon.5 He was sentenced to, inter alia, two 19 20 21 1 ECF No. 22-8. 2 331 P.3d 867 (Nev. 2014). 22 3 ECF No. 105. 23 4 Id. 5 ECF No. 22-8. 1 consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.6 The Nevada Supreme Court 2 affirmed Pritchett’s conviction.7 3 Pritchett filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the state district court 4 followed by a counseled supplemental petition.8 Following an evidentiary hearing,9 the state 5 district court denied that petition.10 He appealed the denial of his state habeas petition, and the 6 Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.11 7 On June 16, 2017, this court received a pro se federal habeas corpus petition from 8 Pritchett, initiating this action.12 Counsel was appointed,13 and with counsel, Pritchett filed a 9 first,14 second,15 and third amended habeas petition.16 In his third amended petition, Pritchett 10 added a new claim—ground 8—that his trial counsel violated his Sixth Amendment rights by 11 conceding his guilt.17 I sua sponte entered a stay to allow Pritchett to return to state court to 12 exhaust that ground.18 When those state-court proceedings concluded, I reopened this case and 13 14 15 6 Id. 16 7 ECF No. 22-15. 8 ECF Nos. 23, 23-2. 17 9 ECF No. 23-7. 18 10 ECF No. 23-8. 11 ECF No. 23-12. 19 12 ECF No. 7. 20 13 ECF No. 6. 21 14 ECF No. 12. 15 ECF No. 32. 22 16 ECF No. 42. 23 17 See ECF No. 41 at 1. 18 Id. 1 directed respondents to respond to Pritchett’s third amended petition.19 Respondents moved to 2 dismiss Pritchett’s third amended petition, but I granted Pritchett’s motion to strike that motion 3 and instructed Respondents to file an answer or a new motion to dismiss.20 Respondents filed a 4 new motion to dismiss,21 and Pritchett filed a motion to stay to allow him to exhaust four 5 grounds in state court.22 I denied Pritchett’s motion for a stay23 and I granted in part the 6 respondents’ motion to dismiss: (1) dismissing ground 8 as time barred, (2) deferring a decision 7 on whether Pritchett can establish cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default of 8 grounds 1(a) through 1(e), and (3) finding that grounds 2, 4, 6, and parts of 7 were 9 unexhausted.24 Pritchett chose to abandon his unexhausted grounds, I dismissed them,25 and 10 respondents answered the remaining grounds.26 Following a request for an extension, Pritchett’s 11 reply was due on January 19, 2024.27 Rather than filing his reply, Pritchett moved for a stay.28 12 Respondents opposed the motion, and Pritchett replied.29 13 14 15 16 19 ECF No. 46. 17 20 ECF No. 75. 18 21 ECF No. 76. 22 ECF No. 79. 19 23 ECF No. 84. 20 24 ECF No. 93. 21 25 ECF No. 95. 26 ECF No. 102. 22 27 ECF No. 104. 23 28 ECF No. 105. 29 ECF Nos. 107, 108. 1 Discussion 2 In moving for a stay, Pritchett explains that the Federal Public Defender is challenging 3 Brown v. McDaniel, the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision holding that under Nevada law 4 postconviction counsel’s ineffectiveness is not cause for overcoming a procedural default in non- 5 capital cases, in state court on the basis that Brown should be overruled in light of Shinn v. 6 Ramirez.30 Pritchett explains that the Nevada Supreme Court is considering the argument en 7 banc in Coca v. State, and he requests that this court stay this case pending the outcome of 8 Coca.31 Pritchett proposes that if Brown is overruled, he will have good cause for a stay to 9 return to state court to present claims that have never been before the Nevada state courts.32 10 Alternatively, Pritchett requests an extension of 90 days to file his reply brief, “in the hopes the 11 Nevada Supreme Court has decided the issue by then.”33 12 Because Pritchett does not seek a stay to exhaust claims in a mixed petition, Rhines v. 13 Weber34 does not directly govern the present situation. But Rhines does not rule out stays in 14 other contexts. The Supreme Court has confirmed that “AEDPA does not deprive district courts 15 of [their] authority” to issue stays, although “it does circumscribe their discretion” such that a 16 stay and abeyance must “be compatible with AEDPA’s purposes.”35 17 The stay that Pritchett is requesting is indefinite, as there is no way of knowing when the 18 Nevada Supreme Court will decide Coca. And a stay would delay the resolution of this case and 19 20 30 ECF No. 105 at 2. 21 31 Id. 32 Id. 22 33 Id. 23 34 544 U.S. 269 (2005). 35 Id. at 276; see also Ryan v. Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57, 73–74 (2013). discourage finality, as there is no indication that the Nevada Supreme Court will overrule Brown. So I find that the requested stay is not in the interest of justice and would impair the interests of finality and efficiency served by AEDPA. For these same reasons, I also find that an extension of 90 days to give the Nevada Supreme Court time to decide Coca is unwarranted. Instead, I 5|| find good cause exists for a 30-day extension. 6 Conclusion 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner Shawn Pritchett’s motion for a stay [ECF 8]| No. 105] is DENIED. Pritchett has until March 25, 2024, to file his reply. 9 10 US. District udge Je (A Dosey 11 Dated: February 22, 2024 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23