Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00003-3/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)

---

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

PETER M. BERGNE,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

 /

1: 07 CV 00003 LJO WMW HC

ORDER VACATING ORDER ENTERED JULY

15, 2008, GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

REQUEST FOR A STAY

[Doc. 20]

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

REQUEST FOR A STAY OF THE

PROCEEDINGS

[Doc. 17]

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. On May 23, 2008, Respondent filed a request for a stay in this case pending

the Ninth Circuit’s en banc review in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9 Cir.2008), reh’g en

th

banc granted, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2131400, No. 06-55392 (9 Cir. May 16, 2008). On July 7, th

2008, this court entered an order granting Respondent’s motion for a stay. Upon sua sponte

reconsideration, the court has determined that the order was entered in error. Accordingly, the

Case 1:07-cv-00003-LJO -WMW Document 21 Filed 09/16/08 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

court’s order entered July 7, 2008, granting Respondent’s request for a stay in this case is HEREBY

VACATED.

On May 23, 2008, Respondent filed a motion for stay of the proceedings pending the Ninth

Circuit’s en banc review in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9 Cir.2008), reh’g en banc th

granted, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2131400, No. 06-55392 (9 Cir. May 16, 2008). th

DISCUSSION

As Respondent notes, 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 (9 Cir.1979). However, the Ninth Circuit th

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 (9 Cir.2000). In addition, “habeas proceedings implicate special th

considerations that 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 Respondent 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, as Petitioner points out, 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

Case 1:07-cv-00003-LJO -WMW Document 21 Filed 09/16/08 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

(1985); Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914 (9 Cir.2003); Sass v. California Board of Prison th

Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9 Cir.2006); Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851 (9 Cir.2007). th th

Pursuant to Yong, this Court has no authority to await a further ruling from the Ninth Circuit before

applying these binding precedents. 208 F.3d at 1119 n. 2.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Respondent’s request for a stay of this case is DENIED;

2) this case is now fully briefed and ready for resolution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00003-LJO -WMW Document 21 Filed 09/16/08 Page 3 of 3