Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Velasquez v. Horel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 27, 2009

DAVID VELASQUEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT A. HOREL, ACTING WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. J. Clifford Wallace United States Circuit Judge Sitting by Designation

ORDER

David Velasquez, a California state prisoner, petitions pro se for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Velasquez challenges a decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings denying him parole. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is currently adjudicating an appeal, Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), reh'g en banc granted, 527 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2008), argued en banc and submitted for decision June 24, 2008, which may have an impact on how federal district courts review decisions by the California Board of Parole Hearings. Therefore, this court sua sponte stays the proceedings pending resolution of Hayward by the en banc court.

A district court has the inherent power to stay cases to control its docket and promote efficient use of judicial resources. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); Dependable Highway Express v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). In determining whether a stay is appropriate pending the resolution of another case, a district court must consider various competing interests, including: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship to the parties if the suit is allowed to go forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110-09 (9th Cir. 2005), citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Additionally, a district court must consider whether a stay pending resolution of another case is likely to be resolved in a reasonable amount of time because of our duty to adjudicate habeas petitions in a reasonable time frame. Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2000).

1. Damage

The only potential damage resulting from a stay is to Velasquez, who may have to wait longer for resolution of his petition. However, prudence dictates that the court await the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Hayward so that Velasquez's claims need not be reconsidered in the wake of that appeal. Reconsideration would also result in delay. It is consequently not clear that a stay pending Hayward will ultimately lengthen the pendency of Velasquez's petition. The court finds that the possible damage to Velasquez is minimal.

2. Hardship

Both parties face the prospect of hardship if the court were to resolve the petition before Hayward is decided. If Hayward affects the legal standard applicable to federal habeas petitions challenging parole hearings in California, then this proceeding, and possibly a subsequent parole hearing, may need to be reconsidered and may result in duplicate hearings. Therefore, the court finds that both parties would be disadvantaged by permitting the petition to proceed at this stage.

3. Orderly Course of Justice

A stay pending resolution of Hayward will permit the court to consider Velasquez's petition under the most current precedent and thereby will simplify the proceedings and promote the efficient use of judicial resources. It is in the interest of justice to await the en banc decision in Hayward rather than proceed and have to reconsider the case. Therefore, a stay promotes the orderly course of justice.

4. Temporal Limit

"'The writ of habeas corpus, challenging illegality of detention, is reduced to a sham if . . . trial courts do not act within a reasonable time.' A long stay also threatens to create the perception that courts are more concerned with efficient trial management than with the vindication of constitutional rights." Yong, 208 F.3d at 1120, quoting Jones v. Shell, 572 F.2d 1278, 1280 (8th Cir. 1978). Here, however, the stay is not indefinite and is related to the timing of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hayward, which the en banc court has already had under consideration for over a year. The length of the stay will not be unreasonable.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that this action be administratively stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), reh'g en banc granted, 527 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2008).

20090727

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.