Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01787/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-01787-1/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

Order Denying Motion for Stay; To Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Bradshaw787_deny-stay.osc.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BRADSHAW,

Petitioner,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1787 JF (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR STAY; TO SHOW

CAUSE

(Docket No. 5)

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California, has filed a habeas corpus petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the Board of Parole Hearings’ decision to deny

Petitioner parole. On May 13, 2008, the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the

petition should not be granted based on Petitioner’s cognizable claims. Instead of filing an

answer or motion to dismiss, as Respondent was ordered to do, Respondent filed a motion

to stay this case indefinitely, pending the issuance of a decision in Hayward v. Marshall,

512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted, No. 06-55392, slip op. at 1 (9th Cir. May

16, 2008). 

Respondent asserts that a stay is warranted on basis of judicial order and economy

because Hayward “may” decide various issues applicable to this case. It is an abuse of

Case 5:08-cv-01787-JF Document 8 Filed 06/30/08 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

Order Denying Motion for Stay; To Show Cause

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Bradshaw787_deny-stay.osc.wpd 2

discretion for a district court to stay a habeas petition indefinitely pending resolution of a

different case involving parallel issues on the basis of judicial economy and to prevent an

intra-district split in decisions. Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1120-22 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 Accordingly, the motion for a stay is DENIED. 

Within 60 days of the date this order is filed, Respondent shall comply with the

May 13, 2008 Order to Show Cause. 

This order terminates Docket No. 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

6/30/08

Case 5:08-cv-01787-JF Document 8 Filed 06/30/08 Page 2 of 2