Williams v. Stirling et al
||Charles Christopher Williams
||Bryan P Stirling and Joseph McFadden
||May 24, 2016
||US District Court for the District of South Carolina
||J Michelle Childs
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|March 8, 2018
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 139 . The court hereby ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation as to Grounds One through Ten, and REJECTS the Report and Recommendation as to Grounds 33Eleven t hrough Fifteen. (ECF No. 146). Therefore, the court GRANTS the respondentsMotion for Summary Judgment as toGrounds One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Seven, Eight, Nine, and Ten and DENIES it as to Ground Six (ECF No. 101). Consequently, the court GR ANTS petitioners amended habeas petition as to Ground Six (ECF No. 74), and VACATES his death sentence. Based on the Supreme Courts decision in Rhines, the court suggests that a resentencing trial in state court occur within 30 days or as soon as practical thereafter. Further, as to Grounds Eleven through Fifteen, the court GRANTS the petitioner a stay pending exhaustion of these claims in state court. Finally, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the petitioners Motion to Expand the Record and for Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 109) and his Motion to Stay pending the decision in Ayestas v. Davis (ECF No. 121). Accordingly, the court REJECTS the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation as to petitioners Motion to Stay pending the decision in Ayestas v. Davis (ECF No. 139). Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 3/8/2018. (kric, )
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?