Michael Bowersox, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Doyle J. Williams (517 U.S. 345)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 9, 1996 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 517 U.S. 345 · 116 S. Ct. 1312
- Decided
- April 9, 1996
- Term
- October Term 1995
- Vote
- 6–3
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Stay, petition, or motion granted
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. Doyle J. Williams is scheduled to be executed by the State of Missouri on April 10, 1996. On January 11, 1996, a Federal District Court denied Williams’ third federal habeas corpus petition, finding all of Williams’ claims to be abusive, successive, or procedurally defaulted. On March 8,1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit entered a summary order staying Williams’ execution. The Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument for May 13, 1996, and resolved that the stay would remain in effect pending submission of the case and that court’s further order. The summary order gives no explanation for the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that oral argument is necessary or that entry of a stay was appropriate. The Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc, and we now have before us an application to vacate the stay. “A stay of execution pending disposition of a second or successive federal habeas petition should be granted only when there are ‘substantial grounds upon which relief might be granted.”’ Delo v. Stokes, 495 U. S. 320, 321 (1990) (per curiam) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 895 (1983)). Entry of a stay on a second or third habeas petition is a drastic measure, and we have held that it is “ ‘particularly egregious’ ” to enter a stay absent substantial grounds for relief. Delo v. Blair, 509 U. S. 823 (1993) (citation…
Excerpt of a 2,858-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.