Opinion ID: 77490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Stay Execution

Text: 12 We will consider the last-minute nature of an application to stay execution in deciding whether to grant equitable relief. Gomez v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal., 503 U.S. 653, 654, 112 S.Ct. 1652, 118 L.Ed.2d 293 (1992). We must consider the extent to which [Hutcherson] has delayed unnecessarily in bringing the claim ... [because] there is a strong equitable presumption against the grant of a stay where a claim could have been brought at such a time as to allow consideration of the merits without requiring entry of a stay. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 649-50, 124 S.Ct. 2117, 2126, 158 L.Ed.2d 924 (2004) (quoted with approval in Hill v. McDonough, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2096, 2104, 165 L.Ed.2d 44 (2006)). The Supreme Court noted that a stay is an equitable remedy, and [e]quity must take into consideration the State's strong interest in proceeding with its judgment and . . . attempt[s] at manipulation. Nelson, 541 U.S. at 650, 124 S.Ct. at 2126. (quoting Gomez, 503 U.S. at 654, 112 S.Ct. 1652, 118 L.Ed.2d 293). 13 Hutcherson requests that this court grant him a stay of his execution pending our resolution of his motion for leave to file a successive habeas petition. A stay is inappropriate because Hutcherson's inequitable conduct does not entitle him to equitable relief. The State placed Hutcherson on notice in June 2006 that it intended to seek a date for his execution. The State served Hutcherson and his attorney with its motion. On September 20, 2006, the State again sought an execution date for Hutcherson, with notice to Hutcherson and his counsel. In spite of this notice, Hutcherson waited until eight days before his scheduled execution to file his motion to stay pending this court's ruling on his application to file a successive habeas petition. As we noted in Hill v. McDonough, 464 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir.2006), Hutcherson is the architect of the very trap from which he now seeks relief. Hutcherson's need for a stay of execution is directly attributable to his own failure to bring his claims to court in a timely fashion. Because there is a strong equitable presumption against the grant of a stay where a claim could have been brought at such a time as to allow consideration of the merits without requiring entry of a stay, Nelson, 541 U.S. at 650, 124 S.Ct. at 2126, we decline to grant Hutcherson a stay. 14 APPLICATION DENIED; STAY OF EXECUTION DENIED.