Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02130/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-02130-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gary Thomas Kelley, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Laura Escapule, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-02130-PHX-SPL (BSB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to Stay State Court Civil 

Proceeding. (Doc. 11.) Respondents oppose the motion, and Petitioner has filed a reply. 

(Docs. 15, 17.)1

 For the reasons below, the Court recommends that Petitioner’s motion 

be denied. 

I. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

 On September 24, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions in the Maricopa County 

Superior Court for second degree murder and aggravated assault. (Doc. 1.) The Petition 

raises four grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that the Arizona 

Supreme Court failed to consider Petitioner’s state post-conviction claims, in violation of 

Petitioner’s due process rights. In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that the state trial court 

 

1

 In his Reply, Petitioner argues that the Arizona Attorney General’s Office should be disqualified as counsel in this matter. (Doc. 17.) Petitioner has filed a separate document addressing this issue that the Court will address in a separate order. (Doc. 10 (Petitioner’s objection to an order on Respondent’s motion for extension of time). ) 

Case 2:14-cv-02130-SPL Document 18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

interfered with Petitioner’s ability to obtain excerpts of transcripts and that the appellate 

court denied Petitioner counsel, in violation of Petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights. In Count Three, Petitioner alleges that the trial court denied 

Petitioner’s due process rights by amending the indictment to include a charge of 

manslaughter, by giving a defective jury instruction, and by “excising its two clauses for 

the consideration of self-defense.” In Ground Four, Petitioner alleges that the state trial 

court improperly declared a mistrial, in violation of Petitioner’s due process rights. 

(Doc. 1.) 

II. Petitioner’s Motion to Stay the State Court Civil Matter 

 In the pending motion, Petitioner asks this Court to stay to a wrongful death action 

that is pending in the Maricopa County Superior Court (CV-2012-093251), and in which 

he is a defendant. (Doc. 11.) The wrongful death action apparently arises out of the 

same incident as Petitioner’s challenged conviction. (Doc. 11 at 2, attachment 1; Doc. 16 

at 3, Ex. A.) Petitioner argues that the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2251, 

authorizes the Court to stay the state court civil matter. 

 Respondents argue that the Court is not authorized to stay the state court civil 

matter under the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides that “[a] court of the United States 

may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a state court except as expressly 

authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect 

or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Thus, by its terms, the Anti-Injunction 

Act provides that a federal court may enjoin a state court proceeding when explicitly 

authorized by a federal statute. Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 226, (1972). 

 As Petitioner asserts (Doc. 17 at 2), the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2251, is 

one of the few statutes that authorizes a federal court to stay proceedings in state court. 

See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 858 (1994) (“Because § 2251 expressly authorizes 

federal courts to stay state-court proceedings “for any matter involved in the habeas 

corpus proceeding,” the exercise of this authority is not barred by the Anti-Injunction 

Act). 

Case 2:14-cv-02130-SPL Document 18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Section 2251 provides that: 

A justice or judge of the United States before whom a habeas 

corpus proceeding is pending, may, before final judgment or after final judgment of discharge, or pending appeal, stay any proceeding against the person detained in any State court or by or under the authority of any State for any matter involved in the habeas corpus proceeding. 

28 U.S.C. § 2251(a)(1) (emphasis added). The standard for granting a stay pursuant to 

§ 2251 requires a petitioner to show substantial grounds upon which relief might be 

granted. Vargas v. Lambert, 159 F.3d 1161, 1166 (9th Cir. 1998). 

 “[T]he statute allows for a stay of any proceeding, judicial or otherwise, relating to 

the subject matter of the habeas corpus petition.” Byrd v. Moore, 252 F. Supp. 2d 293, 

306 n.3 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2003). Section 2251 is often used to stay the execution of 

capital defendants. Id.; see McFarland, 512 U.S. at 859 (“once a capital defendant 

invokes his right to appointed counsel, a federal court also has jurisdiction under § 2251 

to enter a stay of execution.”). 

 Here, Petitioner seeks a stay of a civil wrongful death action against him for the 

death of Juan Varela, a victim in Petitioner’s criminal case. (Doc. 11 at 2.) The civil 

wrongful death suit, however, is not “involved in the habeas corpus proceeding.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2251. Additionally, because different legal standards apply to federal habeas 

corpus review and to a state-law wrongful death action, the outcome of this habeas 

corpus proceeding will not impact the state court civil suit. Thus, the Court recommends 

that the motion to stay the civil proceeding be denied. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of State Court Civil 

Proceeding (Doc. 11) be DENIED. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(1), should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The 

parties have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

Case 2:14-cv-02130-SPL Document 18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 and 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within 

which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result in the District Court’s 

acceptance of the Report and Recommendation without further review. See United States

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to 

any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a 

party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered 

pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 6th day of February, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-02130-SPL Document 18 Filed 02/06/15 Page 4 of 4