Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02070/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02070-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

ANDREW F. WALKER,

NO. CIV. S-07-2070 FCD DAD (HC)

Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

D.K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondents.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on respondent D.K. Sisto’s

(“respondent”) application for a stay of the court’s March 4,

2010 order granting petitioner Andrew F. Walker’s (“petitioner”)

habeas petition. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s

findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”), granting the petition on

the ground that the record lacked some evidence supporting the

denial of parole and requiring respondent to “calculate a term

for petitioner in accordance with the requirements of California

Penal Code § 3041” within thirty days of server of the order. 

(Docket #17.) Respondent moves for a stay of the court’s order

pending appeal, or in the alternative, for a temporary stay to

Case 2:07-cv-02070-JAM-DAD Document 23 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 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

1 Fed. R. App. Proc. 23(c) provides: “While a decision

ordering the release of a prisoner is under review, the prisoner

must – unless the court or judge rendering the decision, or the

court of appeals, or the Supreme Court, or a judge or justice of

either court orders otherwise – be released on personal

recognizance, with or without surety.” 

2

give respondent the opportunity to seek a stay in the Ninth

Circuit.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) provides that a

party must move in the district court for a stay of the judgment

or order of a district court pending appeal. In the context of a

habeas corpus matter, “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c)

provides that, when the Government appeals a decision granting a

writ of habeas corpus, the habeas petitioner shall be released

from custody,” unless the court rendering the decision orders

otherwise. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 772 (1987).1

Rule 23(c) “undoubtedly creates a presumption of release from

custody in such cases,” but the presumption may be overcome where

the factors traditionally considered in deciding whether to stay

a judgment in a civil case, “tip the balance against it.” Id. at

774, 777. These factors include: “(1) whether the stay applicant

has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the

merits [of its appeal]; (2) whether the applicant will be

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

the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested

in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id.

at 776-77. “Where the State establishes that it has a strong

likelihood of success on appeal, or where, failing that, it can

nonetheless demonstrate a substantial case on the merits,

continued custody is permissible if the second and fourth factors

Case 2:07-cv-02070-JAM-DAD Document 23 Filed 03/18/10 Page 2 of 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

2 These questions and the relevant case law are

thoroughly described by the magistrate judge in the F&Rs, by

respondent’s brief objecting to the F&Rs, and the instant motion. 

Accordingly, the court does repeat that discussion here.

3

. . . militate against release.” Id. at 778. Where the merits

showing does not meet this level, “the preference for release

should control.” Id. Ultimately, like its discretion in

“conditioning a judgment granting habeas relief,” this court has

“broad discretion” in determining “whether the judgment granting

habeas relief should be stayed pending appeal.” Id. at 775.

In this case, respondent has shown a possibility, although

not a likelihood, of success on some of the substantial issues

presented in this case. These issues include, inter alia: (1)

whether there is clearly established federal law requiring that a

decision to deny parole be supported by “some evidence”; (2) if

such law exists, whether some evidence existed in this case; and

(3) whether the appropriate remedy for a violation was

calculation of a release date. All of these matters present

complicated questions, which neither the Supreme Court nor the

Ninth Circuit have definitively addressed.2

However, apart from the complexity of the merits issues, the

other factors do not militate strongly in favor of a stay. 

Respondent has not made a particularized showing that calculation

of a release date would endanger public safety or otherwise harm

the parole system generally. The court also rejects respondent’s

contention that a stay, which necessarily prolongs detention,

will not injure petitioner as well as respondent’s argument that

a stay sufficiently furthers the public interest in respecting

the state’s parol process. 

Case 2:07-cv-02070-JAM-DAD Document 23 Filed 03/18/10 Page 3 of 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

4

Nevertheless, the court finds that consideration of all

relevant factors, including the highly difficult questions on the

merits, warrants a limited stay to allow respondent to seek a

stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(2)(A)(ii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 18, 2010

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02070-JAM-DAD Document 23 Filed 03/18/10 Page 4 of 4