Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01820/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01820-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVIER PASTRANA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

KEN CLARK, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01820 OWW YNP [DLB] (HC) 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION TO STAY

[Doc. #17]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On May 29, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the petition pending the outcome of

Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), reh’g en banc granted, 527 F.3d 797 (9th Cir.

2008).

DISCUSSION

The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that this 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 Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir.1979). However, the Ninth Circuit has also determined

that “once a federal circuit court issues a decision, the district courts within that circuit are bound to

follow it and have no authority to await a ruling by the Supreme Court before applying the circuit

court's decision as binding authority.” Yong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 208 F.3d

1116, 1119 n. 2 (9th Cir.2000). In addition, “habeas proceedings implicate special considerations that

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-01820-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 03/03/10 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

place unique limits on a district court's authority to stay a case in the interests of judicial economy.” 

Yong, 208 F.3d at 1120. “Special solicitude is required because the writ is intended to be a ‘swift

and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement.’” Id. (quoting Fay v. Noia, 372

U.S. 391, 400 (1963)). In Yong, the Ninth Circuit addressed an analogous situation where the

district court issued a stay pending a decision from the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit found that

although considerations of judicial economy are appropriate, they cannot justify an indefinite and

potentially lengthy stay of a habeas proceeding. Id. at 1120-21. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit ruled

the district court abused its discretion in granting a stay.

In this case Petitioner asks the Court to stay the proceedings pending a decision in Hayward.

Like Yong, such a stay would be lengthy. As well, this is a habeas proceeding and therefore

implicates special considerations that limit the Court’s authority to issue a stay. But more importantly,

there is ample binding precedent from the Ninth Circuit other than Hayward which bear on the issues

in the petition. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985); Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d

910, 914 (9th Cir.2003); Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9th

Cir.2006); Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851 (9th Cir.2007). Pursuant to Yong, this Court has no

authority to await a further ruling from the Ninth Circuit before applying these binding precedents.

Yong, 208 F.3d at 1119 n. 2.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for stay is DENIED; and

2. All dates currently set in this action shall remain pending subject to further order of the

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:08-cv-01820-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2