Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02250/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02250-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS FOWLER, )

) 2:02-cv-2250-GEB-JFM-P

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

DIANE BUTLER, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

)

On June 18, 2007, Respondent Diane Butler filed an

“Application for a Stay of the Court’s June 14, 2007 Order Granting

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” Respondent “requests a stay

of this Court’s order requiring the Board of Parole Hearings . . . to

set a release date for [Petitioner] pending appeal.” (Resp.’s Appl.

at 1.) Respondent requests “an expedited ruling on the stay request

because the June 14, 2007 Order directs Respondent to comply within

thirty days.” (Id. at 2.)

Respondent seeks the stay pending appeal to the Ninth

Circuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) (“Rule 62(c)”). 

“Rule 62(c) provides that when an appeal is taken from a final

judgment granting an injunction, the court has discretion to suspend

the injunction during the pendency of an appeal upon such terms that

Case 2:02-cv-02250-GEB -JFM Document 83 Filed 06/20/07 Page 1 of 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

2

will secure the rights of the adverse party.” (Appl. at 2 (citing

Rule 62(c)).) “[T]he factors regulating the issuance of a stay are 

. . . : (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that

he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will

be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay

will substantially injure the other parties interested in the

proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v.

Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). 

Respondent contends that a stay pending appeal should be

granted because (1) Respondent has a high likelihood of success on the

merits of her appeal (Appl. at 3); (2) the parole board and the

state’s parole system will be irreparably injured if a parole date is

set for Petitioner, because “requiring the Board to set a release date

for [Petitioner] improperly usurp[s] the executive’s legislatively

mandated functions” and because once the parole board sets a release

date, the Governor will review that decision, and “should the Governor

grant parole to [Petitioner], the case will be moot and the Board will

be deprived of having legal issues that are of significant import

litigated” (id. at 6-7); (3) the issuance of a stay would not

substantially injure Petitioner (id. at 7); and (4) a stay is

necessary to protect the public interest, since “[t]he state has

established a parole process that should be respected [and] the public

has an interest in the Board’s decision remaining undisturbed during

the pendency of the appeal of this court’s decision” (id. at 8). 

For the reasons stated in the June 14 Order, and the amended

findings and recommendations filed May 23, 3007, Respondent has not

established that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her appeal. 

Additionally, Respondent’s arguments that the parole board and the

Case 2:02-cv-02250-GEB -JFM Document 83 Filed 06/20/07 Page 2 of 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

3

state’s parole system will suffer irreparable harm if a parole date is

set for Petitioner, and that the public has an interest in the parole

board’s decision remaining undisturbed, are unpersuasive, especially

in light of Respondent’s statement that the parole board’s decision

will “move[] on for review by the Governor” after a release date is

set. (Id. at 7.) Moreover, Petitioner would be irreparably harmed by

a stay that would keep him in prison indefinitely, especially since it

has already been determined that due process requires the parole board

to set a release date for Petitioner. Therefore, Respondent’s

application for a stay pending appeal is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-02250-GEB -JFM Document 83 Filed 06/20/07 Page 3 of 3