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.

Walker v. Sisto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 18, 2010

ANDREW F. WALKER, PETITIONER,
v.
D.K. SISTO, WARDEN, RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frank C. Damrell, Jr. United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on respondent D.K. Sisto's ("respondent") application for a stay of the court's March 4, 2010 order granting petitioner Andrew F. Walker's ("petitioner") habeas petition. The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations ("F&Rs"), granting the petition on the ground that the record lacked some evidence supporting the denial of parole and requiring respondent to "calculate a term for petitioner in accordance with the requirements of California Penal Code § 3041" within thirty days of server of the order. (Docket #17.) Respondent moves for a stay of the court's order pending appeal, or in the alternative, for a temporary stay to give respondent the opportunity to seek a stay in the Ninth Circuit.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) provides that a party must move in the district court for a stay of the judgment or order of a district court pending appeal. In the context of a habeas corpus matter, "Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c) provides that, when the Government appeals a decision granting a writ of habeas corpus, the habeas petitioner shall be released from custody," unless the court rendering the decision orders otherwise. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 772 (1987).*fn1

Rule 23(c) "undoubtedly creates a presumption of release from custody in such cases," but the presumption may be overcome where the factors traditionally considered in deciding whether to stay a judgment in a civil case, "tip the balance against it." Id. at 774, 777. These factors include: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits [of its appeal]; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Id. at 776-77. "Where the State establishes that it has a strong likelihood of success on appeal, or where, failing that, it can nonetheless demonstrate a substantial case on the merits, continued custody is permissible if the second and fourth factors... militate against release." Id. at 778. Where the merits showing does not meet this level, "the preference for release should control." Id. Ultimately, like its discretion in "conditioning a judgment granting habeas relief," this court has "broad discretion" in determining "whether the judgment granting habeas relief should be stayed pending appeal." Id. at 775.

In this case, respondent has shown a possibility, although not a likelihood, of success on some of the substantial issues presented in this case. These issues include, inter alia: (1) whether there is clearly established federal law requiring that a decision to deny parole be supported by "some evidence"; (2) if such law exists, whether some evidence existed in this case; and (3) whether the appropriate remedy for a violation was calculation of a release date. All of these matters present complicated questions, which neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit have definitively addressed.*fn2

However, apart from the complexity of the merits issues, the other factors do not militate strongly in favor of a stay. Respondent has not made a particularized showing that calculation of a release date would endanger public safety or otherwise harm the parole system generally. The court also rejects respondent's contention that a stay, which necessarily prolongs detention, will not injure petitioner as well as respondent's argument that a stay sufficiently furthers the public interest in respecting the state's parol process.

Nevertheless, the court finds that consideration of all relevant factors, including the highly difficult questions on the merits, warrants a limited stay to allow respondent to seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(2)(A)(ii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.