Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00132/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00132-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLISTER GEORGE,

Petitioner,

v.

W. J. SULLIVAN, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

1: 08 CV 00132 AWI WMW HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

[Doc. 12]

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

U.S.C. Section 2254. 

On June 11, 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). Petitioner has not th

responded to the motion.

DISCUSSION

As Respondent notes, the Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that this Court “may, with

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 13 Filed 12/04/08 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

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

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

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

208 F.3d at 1119 n. 2.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 13 Filed 12/04/08 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

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Respondent’s motion for stay is DENIED; 

2) Respondent’s response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be filed no later than

sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 13 Filed 12/04/08 Page 3 of 3