Whether a death row inmate has a constitutional right to adequate access to his complete case files and effective assistance of counsel in the final stages of post-conviction litigation to investigate and present claims of constitutional violations before execution

No question identified. : To the Honorable Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Tenth Circuit: The State of Oklahoma has scheduled the execution of Petitioner, Anthony Sanchez, for September 21, 2023, at 10:30 A.M. The Western District Court of Oklahoma denied relief on September 13, 2023. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request for stay on September 19, 2023. Sanchez respectfully requests that this Court stay his execution, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f), pending consideration of his concurrently filed petition for a writ of certiorarl. STANDARDS FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION The standards for granting a stay of execution are well-established. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895 (1983). There “must be a reasonable probability that four members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari or the notation of probable jurisdiction; there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court's decision; and there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed.” Id. (internal quotations omitted) PETITIONER SHOULD BE GRANTED A STAY OF EXECUTION In this case, Petitioner’s prior counsel filed a motion to determine what should be done with the files in this matter. R.80 Motion of appointed attorneys to determine disposition of files and brief in support. They further asked to withdraw, only a brief time prior to the execution. The court did not dispose of this motion until August 7, 2023. In that order the court determined that counsel could keep the files from their client. R. 89,Order. The basis of this motion is that there is confidential information in the boxes that should be kept from the Petitioner. Petitioner has new counsel who does not have access to these documents. Investigator David Ballard had sought to take possession of these boxes last spring and when he appeared at the offices of the attorneys was told he could not have them. The court then orders that the lawyers have no obligation to turn over the Petitioners file to anyone. This includes current counsel, working pro bono for Petitioner. The court then decides that David Ballard cannot pick up the files. So current counsel must impose upon another attorney to take possession of the files and place them in his conference room. Current counsel then must drop all his other responsibilities and go to Oklahoma City to attempt to review what he can while he is finishing writing documents prior to the scheduled execution. Had the District Court allowed the substitution this could have been done in a timely and measured manner. The court refused and then prior counsel left the case with weeks left to go prior to execution. Clemency! or post-conviction Counsel under the standards provided by the ABA Guidelines must investigate claims. See ABA guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases, 2008, Rule 10.15.1; Rule 10.15.2. This cannot be done. Counsel only took possession of the file last Friday. It contains fifty boxes full of paperwork. Counsel attempted to review the ' Counsel is aware Petitioner has waived his clemency proceedings, but the duty to determine claims and options for success still exists. files and write the documents needed for the appeal. Again, there simply is not enough time to carefully review all the documents in the time provided by the District Court. Mr. Sanchez has diligently pursued relief for the alleged Constitutional violations every step of the way in the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, in the Tenth Circuit, and in the United States Supreme Court, only to be stymied by his own counsel when they refused to provide Mr. Sanchez’s own file to him. What is more, any delays in resolving this litigation fall solely on that same counsel when they failed to visit or communicate with