Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00706/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00706-0/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

- 1 - 07cv0402

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN A. PORTILLO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08cv0706-LAB (JMA)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION;

GRANTING MOTION TO STAY;

AND DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION TO

RETURN LEGAL PAPERS

[Dkt. Nos. 5, 6, & 8]

vs.

VICTOR M. ALMAGER, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner Juan A. Portillo, a state prisoner appearing without the assistance of

counsel, filed a First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he claims the

Board of Parole Hearings violated his due process rights by failing to consider his favorable

evidence when it found him unsuitable for parole. Respondent filed a request to stay

consideration of this parole claim until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues its en banc

decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536, pet. for reh’g en banc granted, 527 F.3d 797

(9th Cir. 2008). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the court grant the stay because

the en banc Haywood decision may resolve and clarify relevant issues of law. The

Magistrate Judge notes that the Ninth Circuit has sua sponte stayed other appeals that raise

similar due process claims in the parole setting. No objections to the Report and

Recommendation were filed; however, Petitioner subsequently filed an ex parte motion

Case 3:08-cv-00706-LAB-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/20/08 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

27

28

- 2 - 07cv0402

requesting that the prison return his legal papers. Petitioner states that his legal papers were

confiscated in August during a “lock down.” He states that he is pursuing his administrative

remedies to recover his legal papers and to gain access to the prison law library. 

Having reviewed the record and the applicable law, the Court adopts the

recommendation to stay this habeas petition until the en banc panel issues its mandate in

Haywood. [# 6] The court agrees that a stay will serve the interests of judicial economy and

that Petitioner will not be prejudiced by the short delay. (The en banc panel heard oral

argument in June 2008). Accordingly, the court grants the request to stay this habeas

petition. [# 5] Respondent shall promptly notify the court when the mandate issues in the

Haywood en banc, and request that the stay be lifted. At that time, the court will set a

briefing schedule.

As to Petitioner’s complaint that prison officials confiscated his legal papers in August

2008, the court denies without prejudice his request for an order instructing the prison to

return those papers. [# 8] If the matter is not resolved through the normal administrative

grievance procedures at the institution by the date the stay is lifted, Petitioner may re-file his

motion at that time. See Espinoza-Matthews v. California, 432 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2005);

Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 19, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00706-LAB-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/20/08 Page 2 of 2