Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08131/USCOURTS-azd-3_16-cv-08131-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

United States of America,

Plaintiff/Respondent,

v. 

Harry McCabe, Sr.,

Defendant/Movant.

No. CV-16-08131-PCT-JAT (ESW)

 CR-12-8135-PCT-JAT-1

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES 

DISTRICT JUDGE:

This is an action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pending before the Court is 

Harry McCabe, Sr.’s (“Movant”) “Motion to Lift Stay” (Doc. 41).

1 For the reasons

explained below, it is recommended that the Court deny Movant’s Motion (Doc. 41).

2

1 Citations to “Doc.” are to the docket in CV 16-8131-PCT-JAT (ESW). Citations 

to “CR Doc.” are to the docket in the underlying criminal case, CR-12-8135-PCT-JAT.

2

In light of Movant’s objection to a continued stay, the undersigned issues this 

Report and Recommendation in an abundance of caution. See Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 

F.2d 414, 416 (9th Cir.1992) (when injunctive relief sought goes to the merits of 

plaintiff's action or a complete stay of an action, magistrate judge's orders under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (A) are precluded) (“Here, however, the magistrate did not 

recommend the imposition of a stay; rather, he imposed it himself. That order was 

beyond the magistrate [judge]'s authority: it was beyond his jurisdiction and was, in 

essence, a legal nullity.”).

Case 3:16-cv-08131-JAT Document 42 Filed 01/30/20 Page 1 of 6
- 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

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A court’s power to stay proceedings pending the resolution of another case is 

“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on 

its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” 

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “A trial court may, with 

propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket, and the fairest course for the parties to 

enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which 

bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th 

Cir. 1979). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts weigh “the competing 

interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay.” Lockyer v. 

Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 

265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The “proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its 

need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 709 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). If 

there is “even a fair possibility” of harm to the opposing party, the moving party “must 

make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Lockyer, 

398 F.3d at 1112 (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254). In habeas cases, “special 

considerations” are implicated “that place unique limits on a district court's authority to 

stay a case in the interests of judicial economy.” See Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1120 

(9th Cir. 2000). If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite,” the Court “require[s] 

a greater showing to justify it.” Id. at 1119.

II. DISCUSSION

On November 29, 2012, a jury found Movant guilty on the following four counts: 

i. Count 1: CIR-Assault with a Dangerous Weapon, a class C felony 

offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3);

ii. Count 2: CIR-Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, a class C 

felony offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6); and

iii. Counts 3 and 4: CIR-Use of a Firearm in a Crime of Violence, class A 

felony offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). 

(CR Doc. 99). The Court sentenced Movant to (i) concurrent 46-month prison terms on 

Counts 1 and 2 and (ii) concurrent 120-month prison terms on Counts 3 and 4. (CR Doc. 

Case 3:16-cv-08131-JAT Document 42 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 6
- 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

116). The § 924(c) sentences on Counts 3 and 4 are to run consecutively to the sentences 

on Counts 1 and 2. (Id.). In his “Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, 

or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody” (the “Motion to Vacate”) (Doc. 1), 

Movant challenges the constitutionality of his § 924(c) convictions on Counts 3 and 4.

On January 30, 2018, the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc.

26) that recommended that the Court dismiss Movant’s challenge to his conviction on 

Count 3 on the ground that it is procedurally defaulted without excuse. The undersigned

further recommended that the Court stay resolution of Movant’s challenge to his 

conviction on Count 4 pending the (i) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in 

United States v. Begay, No. 3:13-cr-08073-NVW-1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 29, 2014), appeal 

docketed, No. 14-10080 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014) and (ii) the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 2016 WL

3232911 (U.S. Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 15-1498). 

On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dimaya. In light of 

Dimaya, on April 23, 2018, the Court rejected the Report and Recommendation and rereferred the matter to the undersigned after concluding that it would be more efficient to 

address the entire Motion to Vacate at the same time. (Doc. 31). The Court’s April 23, 

2018 Order did not stay the case pending the outcome of Begay, instead leaving it to the

Magistrate Judge’s determination as to whether a stay is appropriate. (Id. at 2). In an 

Order issued on April 27, 2018, the undersigned concluded that the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision in Begay may provide guidance in resolving Movant’s challenge to his 

conviction on Count 4. (Doc. 32). Noting that neither party objected to staying the case 

pending Begay, the undersigned issued a stay. (Id.).

On August 19, 2019, the Ninth Circuit filed its decision in Begay, 934 F.3d 1033 

(9th Cir. 2019). The undersigned lifted the stay and directed the Government to file a 

Supplemental Response to the Motion to Vacate. (Doc. 34). On September 9, 2019, the

Government filed a Motion (Doc. 35) seeking to stay the case pending the resolution of 

the petition for rehearing en banc in United States v. Orona, 923 F.3d 1197, 1203 (9th 

Case 3:16-cv-08131-JAT Document 42 Filed 01/30/20 Page 3 of 6
- 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

Cir. 2019). The Government asserted that, if granted, the petition for rehearing would 

address the same issue posed in Begay—whether a crime of violence can be committed 

recklessly, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Voisine v. United 

States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016). (Doc. 35 at 1). Movant did not object to the limited stay. 

(Id. at 6-7). The undersigned found good cause to grant the Government’s Motion and

stayed the case pending further order of the Court. (Doc. 36).

On November 19, 2019, the Ninth Circuit stayed further proceedings in Orona

pending the issuance of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Walker v. United 

States, 769 F. App’x 195 (6th Cir. 2019), cert. granted, No. 19-373, 2019 WL 6042320 

(U.S. Nov. 15, 2019). The Ninth Circuit also has stayed the petition for panel rehearing 

filed in Begay pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Walker. Begay, No. 14-10080 

(9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2019), ECF No. 121. The parties were directed to file a Joint Notice 

indicating the parties’ positions regarding a continued stay. (Doc. 38). In their Joint 

Notice filed on December 20, 2019, the parties articulated their dispute regarding whether 

the stay should be lifted. (Doc. 39). The Court set a deadline for filing a motion to lift 

the stay. (Doc. 40). On January 15, 2020, Movant filed the pending “Motion to Lift 

Stay” (Doc. 41). The Government has not filed a response, and the time to do so has 

passed.

As explained in the January 30, 2018 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26 at 6-

8), the undersigned has concluded that the Court should dismiss Movant’s challenge to 

his § 924(c) conviction in Count 3, which was based on his underlying Assault with a 

Dangerous Weapon conviction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3). Movant’s ten-year 

sentence on Count 3 does not expire for several more years. Consequently, the

Government correctly asserts that Movant “is not currently in any danger of overstaying 

his sentence, even if this Court were to find in [Movant’s] favor and reverse [Movant’s] 

conviction for Count 4.” (Doc. 35 at 6). The undersigned does not find that Movant

will suffer prejudice from a continued stay in this matter. Further, the undersigned 

concludes that because Walker, Orona, and Begay may influence the Court’s decision

Case 3:16-cv-08131-JAT Document 42 Filed 01/30/20 Page 4 of 6
- 5 -

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

concerning Movant’s challenge to Count 4, the interests of judicial economy are wellserved by a continued stay. The undersigned finds that the balance of competing interests 

weighs in favor of a continued stay. See Leyva, 593 F.2d at 863. Moreover, staying this 

matter pending resolution of Walker, Orona, and Begay is consistent with other Orders 

issued in the District of Arizona. See, e.g., Antonio v. United States, No. CV-16-00341-

TUC-CKJ (D. Ariz. Dec. 4, 2019), ECF No. 27 (staying § 2255 case pending the

decisions in Walker and Orona); Nakai v. United States, No. CV-16-08310-PCT-DGC 

(JZB) (D. Ariz. Jan. 9, 2020), ECF No. 42; United States v. Gonzalez, CV-19-05901-

PHX-SMB (JZB) (D. Ariz. Jan. 23, 2020), ECF No. 7. Accordingly, it is recommended

that the Court deny Movant’s “Motion to Lift Stay” (Doc. 41).

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court deny Movant’s “Motion to Lift Stay” 

(Doc. 41). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court (i) stay this matter pending further 

order of the Court and (ii) direct the parties to file a Joint Notice to the Court upon 

issuance of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Walker v. United States and

the Ninth Circuit’s final resolution of the cases United States v. Orona and United States

v. Begay.

This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 

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

have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this Report and 

Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 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 acceptance of the 

Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file 

Case 3:16-cv-08131-JAT Document 42 Filed 01/30/20 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

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

timely objections to any factual determinations 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 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey,

481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

Dated this 30th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-08131-JAT Document 42 Filed 01/30/20 Page 6 of 6