Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00651/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00651-0/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

cal 

1 08cv651

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Leslie Arthur Byrd,

Petitioner,

v.

Robert J. Hernandez, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.08cv651 JM (AJB)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

REQUEST FOR STAY 

[Doc. No. 6.]

On April 9, 2008, Petitioner Leslie Arthur Byrd filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

contending that his due process rights were violated by the Board of Parole Hearings’ 2006 decision

denying him parole. On June 11, 2008, Respondent filed a request for stay of all proceedings pending

issuance of the mandate in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (2008). 

A court may stay proceedings as part of its inherent power “to control the disposition of the

causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v.

North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The court must exercise its judgment weighing competing

interests and maintaining an even balance. Id. “A trial 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, 593 F.2d 857 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979) (rule applies to judicial, administrative or arbitral

Case 3:08-cv-00651-JM-WVG Document 7 Filed 07/01/08 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

K:\COMMON\BATTAGLI\CASES\2 Orders to be filed\08cv651.byrd.order granting stay.wpd 2 08cv651

proceedings and “does not require that the issues are necessarily controlling of the action before the

court.”) 

On May 16, 2008, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Hayward. (Resp’t’s Request

for Stay attached.) In Hayward, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that the

Governor’s reversal of the Board of Prison Terms’ parole grant violated his right to due process. 

Hayward, 512 F.3d at 540. The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel held that the governor’s reversal of the

parole board’s grant of parole violated his due process rights. Id. at 548. The legal issues in this case

are similar to the ones in Hayward. Therefore, to proceed in this case while Hayward is pending would

be a waste of resources, time and effort by the parties and the court. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has

sua sponte stayed cases until the resolution of Hayward. See, e.g., Boatman v. Brown, no. 05-16199;

Smiley v. Hernandez, no. 06-55727; Valdivia v. Brown, No. 08-15650; Johnson v. Newland, no. 04-

16712; Varner v. Brown, no. 05-16029. Based on the above, the Court exercises its discretion to stay

the case pending a decision in Hayward. Accordingly, the Court grants Respondent’s request for a stay

pending a decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2008

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-00651-JM-WVG Document 7 Filed 07/01/08 Page 2 of 2