Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00194/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00194-3/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1The Board of Prison Terms Hearings was abolished effective

July 1, 2005 and replaced with the Board of Parole Hearings. Cal.

Penal Code § 5075(a).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL ALBERT GUARDADO,

Petitioner,

 v.

MARGARITA PEREZ, Chairwoman, Board of

Prison Terms, et al.,

Respondents.

/

No. C 05-00194 CW

ORDER DENYING

RESPONDENT'S

APPLICATION FOR STAY

Respondent requests an expedited ruling on her application for

a stay, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), of the

Court's April 8, 2008 Order Granting Habeas Petition. Petitioner

opposes the application. Having considered all the papers filed by

the parties, the Court DENIES Respondent's application for a stay.

BACKGROUND

On January 1, 2005, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of

habeas corpus directed to a 2006 denial of parole by the Board of

Prison Terms Hearings1 (Board). The Court granted the petition and

remanded this case to the Board to reevaluate Petitioner's

suitability for parole. In its analysis, the Court relied upon a

Case 4:05-cv-00194-CW Document 48 Filed 06/03/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2The Court notes that the docket does not indicate that

Respondent has filed a notice of appeal as of the date of this

Order. However, the Court will assume, for purposes of this Order,

that Respondent will timely file a notice of appeal.

3

Respondent’s request for an expedited ruling asks that the

Court rule on her application within three days from the date of

its filing. Respondent fails to cite authority for such an

expedited ruling. Petitioner does not oppose based on procedural

grounds; therefore, the Court will not address the procedural

issues raised by Respondent’s application.

2

number of Ninth Circuit cases for the proposition that “continuous

reliance over time on static factors such as the commitment offense

could violate due process.” April 8, 2008 Order at 12. One of the

cases upon which the Court relied for this proposition was Hayward

v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008). On May 16, 2008, the

Ninth Circuit voted to rehear Hayward en banc. Hayward v.

Marshall, __ F.3d __, 2008 WL 2131400 (9th Cir.). In its order,

the Ninth Circuit stated that “the three-judge panel opinion shall

not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.” 

Id. at *1.

According to Respondent’s application, on June 4, 2008,

Petitioner is scheduled for a hearing before the Board in 

compliance with the Court’s April 8, 2008 Order. For this reason,

Respondent requests an expedited ruling on its application for a

stay pending its appeal of the April 8, 2008 Order.2 3

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

that “[w]hen an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final

judgment granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction, the court

in its discretion may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an

Case 4:05-cv-00194-CW Document 48 Filed 06/03/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

injunction during the pendency of the appeal.” The standard for

granting a stay pending appeal is similar to that for a preliminary

injunction. Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Thus, a party seeking a stay must show either (1) a likelihood of

success on the merits of its appeal and the possibility of

irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions regarding the

merits exist and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its

favor. Lands Council v. McNair, 494 F.3d 771, 775 (9th Cir. 2007). 

“These two alternatives are extremes of a single continuum in which

the greater the relative hardship to the party seeking the [stay],

the less probability of success must be shown.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted). In cases such as this one, the court

should also consider the effect on the public interest of granting

the stay. Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1435.

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues that a stay should be granted because she

has a high likelihood of success on the merits “based on the

Court’s failure to appropriately apply the deferential standard of

federal habeas review, and the erroneous application of the someevidence test.” Respondent argues that these issues are before the

en banc panel in Hayward v. Marshall and that resolution of these

issues could significantly impact this case. In his opposition,

Petitioner focuses on the fact that if the stay is granted, he will

suffer irreparable injury and Respondent will suffer none. 

Petitioner also points out that Respondent mistakenly states that

the Court ordered the Board to calculate a release date for him

when the Court merely ordered that the Board hold a new hearing

Case 4:05-cv-00194-CW Document 48 Filed 06/03/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

within sixty days of the April 9, 2008 Order.

As noted above, Hayward is now uncitable because the Ninth

Circuit has voted that it be reheard en banc. Therefore, the

significance of the Court’s citation to Hayward is uncertain until

the Ninth Circuit issues it’s en banc ruling. However, as noted

above, in the April 9, 2008 Order, the Court relied upon other

Ninth Circuit authority for the same proposition. Although

Respondent is correct that the Ninth Circuit will address some of

the issues in Hayward that were at issue in this case, it is

unclear how the Ninth Circuit will rule on these issues. Even if

the Ninth Circuit reverses the three-judge Hayward panel, it is

uncertain how this would affect the April 9, 2008 Order.

In terms of irreparable injury, Petitioner is correct that he

will suffer irreparable injury if the Court’s order is stayed and

the Board hearing scheduled for June 4th is vacated. As stated in

the April 9, 2008 Order, “Petitioner has served more than his

minimum sentence and has been denied parole by the Board five

times. The question is whether it is reasonable to find after

almost thirty years that the facts of the offense constitute some

evidence that Petitioner would be a danger to society if released.” 

April 8, 2008 Order at 12. Respondent states that maintaining the

status quo is necessary to preserve her right to a meaningful

appeal, the safety of the public and principles of comity and

federalism. However, Respondent does not explain how she will

denied a meaningful appeal if the June 4th hearing takes place as

planned. Furthermore, as pointed out by Petitioner, even if the

Board determines that he is suitable for parole at the June 4th

Case 4:05-cv-00194-CW Document 48 Filed 06/03/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

hearing, he will not be released immediately and Respondent will

have time to request a stay of any parole release date pending

resolution of her appeal. Therefore, the safety of the public and

principles of comity and federalism will not be affected if the

June 4th hearing proceeds.

Because Petitioner will suffer irreparable injury if the April

8, 2008 Order is stayed and Respondent will suffer no injury, and

because Respondent’s likelihood of success on the merits is

uncertain, the Court denies Respondent’s application for a stay

pending appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent’s application for a stay

pending appeal is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:June 3, 2008 

D. LOWELL JENSEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00194-CW Document 48 Filed 06/03/08 Page 5 of 5