CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DONALD R. PHILLIPS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
RANDY L. WHITE, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 15-5629
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London.
No. 6:08-cv-00368—Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, District Judge.
Argued: February 1, 2017
Decided and Filed: March 15, 2017
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; COOK and WHITE, Circuit Judges


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Chief Judge. A Kentucky jury convicted Donald Phillips of two counts of first-degree murder. The jury considered the death penalty, but recommended life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for twenty-five years, which the judge imposed. For over six years, Phillips sought post-conviction relief in state trial court based on ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. But no state court ever adjudicated the claim.

Phillips sought habeas corpus relief in federal district court, which dismissed his petition. The court found that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)’s deferential standard governed its review of Phillips’s claim. It held that Phillips had not shown prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), because he had received one of the least severe sentences possible.

We conclude that AEDPA’s deferential standard is inapplicable to Phillips’s claim because no state court ever decided it. We also conclude that Phillips’s counsel was ineffective. In failing to mount a defense during a capital sentencing, he effectively deprived Phillips of counsel throughout a critical stage of trial. Accordingly, prejudice is presumed under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658 (1984). Further, counsel’s performance actually prejudiced Phillips under Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691–92. Thus, we reverse the district court’s judgment and grant Phillips a conditional writ of habeas corpus, requiring the Commonwealth of Kentucky to resentence him within 90 days or release him.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
TODD MATTOX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ADAM EDELMAN, M.D.; CORIZON HEALTH, INC.,
Defendants,

ADRIANNE NEFF, P.A.; HARESH PANDYA, M.D.; KENNETH JORDAN, M.D.; WILLIAM BORGERDING, D.O.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-1412
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:12-cv-13762—Laurie J. Michelson, District Judge.
Argued: January 25, 2017
Decided and Filed: March 15, 2017
Before: MERRITT, CLAY, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Todd Mattox, a Michigan prisoner, appeals from the orders entered by the district court granting various dispositive motions filed against Mattox’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against three doctors and a physician’s assistant who allegedly provided him deficient care for his heart condition. On appeal, Mattox argues that the district court erred in: (i) granting summary judgment on his claims against Defendants Haresh Pandya and William Borgerding for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (ii) sua sponte dismissing his claims against Defendant Kenneth Jordan for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (iii) granting Defendant Adrianne Neff’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. We have subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART the district court’s judgment, and REMAND for further proceedings.