Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01067/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01067-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY MAXXIZZINE JONES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1067 GEB GGH P

vs.

GLORIA A. HENRY, et al., ORDER AND

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is respondent’s February

23, 2007, request to stay proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ determination

regarding whether to permit interlocutory appellate review. For the following reasons, the court

recommends that respondent’s request be granted.

On February 12, 2007, Judge Burrell certified for interlocutory appeal the issue of

whether petitioner’s habeas petition violates the statute of limitations. An application for an

interlocutory appeal does not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the

Court of Appeals so orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

“A district court has inherent discretion to control the disposition of the causes on

its docket in manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, counsel, and for

Case 2:05-cv-01067-GEB-GGH Document 53 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 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

2

litigants.” Filtrol Corp. v. Kelleher, 467 F.2d 242, 244 (9th Cir. 1972). Because the issue before

the Ninth Circuit may be dispositive of this action, a stay of proceedings at this point will

promote economy of time and effort for both the parties and the court. Accordingly, the court

recommends that respondent’s request to stay proceedings be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s February 22, 2007,

motion to supplement the record is vacated; the March 29, 2007, hearing regarding this motion is

vacated;

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Respondent’s February 23, 2007, request to stay be granted;

2. This action be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’

determination regarding whether to permit interlocutory appellate review; respondent notify the

court within ten days of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 3/13/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

jo1067.sta

Case 2:05-cv-01067-GEB-GGH Document 53 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 2