Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00279/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00279-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY FLOYD BRAESEKE,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-05-0279 GEB KJM P 

vs.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., 

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges the fact that he was denied parole

in 2003.

One of the arguments made by petitioner is that the evidence upon which the

denial of parole was based is not constitutionally sufficient. The California Supreme Court has

recently accepted some cases for review, including In re Jacobsen, 172 P.3d 401 (2007),

concerning what evidence needs to appear in the record to support a denial of parole. The United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has also elected to rehear en banc the decision

rendered in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008). See Hayward v. Marshall, 527

F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2008) (Case No. 06-55392). It appears the en banc decision will be rendered

after the California Supreme Court’s decision in Jacobsen and will also provide 

Case 2:05-cv-00279-GEB -CMK Document 35 Filed 08/29/08 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

2

further guidance with respect to insufficiency of the evidence claims brought by those denied

parole in California.

In light of the above, and in the interest of judicial economy, the court will

recommend that this action be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Hayward. 

If this matter is stayed, the parties need take no further action absent further direction from the

court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. This action be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Hayward

v. Marshall, No. 06-55392; and

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to administratively close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: August 28, 2008.

1

brae0279.sty

Case 2:05-cv-00279-GEB -CMK Document 35 Filed 08/29/08 Page 2 of 2