Case ID: f-appx_706/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Geronimo Rene GUTIERREZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
    No. 16-70028
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed December 14, 2017
    Alan Futrell, San Antonio, TX, David Weiss, Center for Death Penalty Litigation, Durham, NC, for Petitioner-Appellant
    Matthew Dennis Ottoway, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

On August 30, 2017, we granted Appellant’s motion to stay proceedings in order to allow him to pursue an Atkins claim in state court in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. Texas, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1039, 197 L.Ed.2d 416 (2017). Because we granted Appellant’s motion based on his Atkins argument, we had no need to determine whether a stay was warranted pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson v. Sellers, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1203, 197 L.Ed.2d 245 (2017). We again decline to reach the merits of Appellant’s Sellers argument.

However, we granted a stay premised on Appellant’s statement that he would promptly file his Atkins claim within ninety days of the Court’s stay order. Appellant failed to do so, instead filing a “status update” informing the court that he requires until February 26, 2018, to do so. We treat Appellant’s status update as a motion for extension of time to file and, finding good cause, GRANT that motion.

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall have until February 26, 2018, to file his new Atkins claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ap-pellee’s motion for clarification, ECF No. 61, is DENIED as moot. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.