Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00518/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00518-3/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

1 Respondent filed its application on June 6, 2007,

requesting an “expedited ruling” by June 20, 2007. By Minute

Order of June 12, 2007, the court set a briefing schedule and a

hearing date of June 22, 2007, should a hearing be necessary. 

2 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JOHN H. PIRTLE,

NO. CIV. S-04-518 FCD KJM

Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISON

TERMS, et al.,

Respondents.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on respondent California

Board of Prison Terms’ (“respondent”) application1 for a stay of

the court’s May 29, 2007 order granting petitioner John H.

Pirtle’s (“petitioner”) habeas petition.2 In said order, the

court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

(“F&Rs”), granting the petition on the ground respondent

Case 2:04-cv-00518-GEB-CKD Document 35 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 5
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

3 Judgment in this case was not entered until June 12,

2007. (Docket #27.) Respondent timely filed its notice of

appeal on June 14, 2007. (Docket #29.)

4 Fed. R. App. Proc. 23(c) provides: “While a decision

ordering the release of a prisoner is under review, the prisoner

must–-unless the court or judge rendering the decision, or the

court of appeals, or the Supreme Court, or a judge or justice of

either court orders otherwise–-be released on personal

recognizance, with or without surety.” 

Respondent’s argument, in its reply, that Rule 23(c) is

inapplicable is wholly unavailing. The F&Rs, which this court

adopted in its order, clearly found that any further parole

suitability hearing would be “futile,” and as such, respondent

was directed to set a “parole date” for petitioner, i.e., to

release him from custody on a date certain. Contrary to

respondent’s suggestions, the court’s order does not permit

respondent to make any suitability determinations; respondent,

per the order, must release petitioner on a specified date.

2

arbitrarily and capriciously denied petitioner parole and

requiring respondent to “set a parole date for petitioner within

thirty days from the date of [the] order.” (Docket #25.) While

the court’s order was dated May 25, 2007, it was not filed and

served by the Clerk of the Court until May 29, 2007. As such,

the court finds that the thirty day period commenced on May 29,

thus requiring respondent to act by June 28, 2007. 

Respondent now moves for a stay of the court’s order pending

its appeal.3 Petitioner opposes the motion, arguing that the

grant of his petition presumptively entitles him to release and

respondent has not rebutted the presumption.

“Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c) provides that,

when the Government appeals a decision granting a writ of habeas

corpus, the habeas petitioner shall be released from custody,”

unless the court rendering the decision orders otherwise. Hilton

v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 772 (1987).4 The Rule “undoubtedly

creates a presumption of release from custody in such cases,” but

Case 2:04-cv-00518-GEB-CKD Document 35 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 5
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

5 These questions and the relevant case law are

thoroughly described by the parties in their briefing in response

to the F&Rs as well as on the instant motion. (Docket #s 22, 24

[respondent’s objections to the F&Rs and petitioner’s reply

thereto].) Accordingly, the court does repeat that discussion

here.

3

the presumption may be overcome where the factors traditionally

considered in deciding whether to stay a judgment in a civil

case, “tip the balance against it.” Id. at 774, 777. Said

factors include: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a

strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits [of its

appeal]; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured

absent a stay; (3) whether the issuance of the stay will

substantially injure the other parties interested in the

proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. at 776-

77. Ultimately, like its discretion in “conditioning a judgment

granting habeas relief,” this court has “broad discretion” in

determining “whether the judgment granting habeas relief should

be stayed pending appeal.” Id. at 775.

In this case, the court finds that the presumption in favor

of release is rebutted in light of the substantial issues

presented in this case, issues on which respondent may well

prevail on appeal. These issues include, among others, whether

there is clearly established federal law requiring that a

decision to deny parole be supported by “some evidence,” if said

law exists, whether such evidence existed in this case, and

whether clearly established federal law precludes the state from

relying on petitioner’s crime to find him unsuitable for parole. 

All of these matters present complicated questions for which

there is no clear answer in the controlling law.5 Indeed, the

Case 2:04-cv-00518-GEB-CKD Document 35 Filed 06/25/07 Page 3 of 5
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

6 See e.g. Kunkler v. Muntz, 2007 WL 683970 (9th Cir.

Mar. 7, 2007); Culverson v. Davidson, 2007 WL 1163683 (9th Cir.

June 8, 2007) (court “assumes without deciding that the denial of

parole must be supported by ‘some evidence’”); Irons v. Carey 479

F.3d 658 (9th Cir. 2007) (petitions for rehearing pending).

7 The court also notes that the Ninth Circuit recently

granted an emergency stay of a petition granting parole after the

stay was denied by the district court, suggesting the propriety

of this court’s stay of the instant action. (Tolliver v. Sisto,

4

law on these issues is in a state of flux6

 and is presently

developing. See e.g. Carey v. Musladin, 127 S. Ct. 649, 652-53

(2006); Schriro v. Landrigan, 127 S. Ct. 1933, 1942 (2007). As

such, considering that there is substantial ground for difference

of opinion on the issues, the court finds that respondent has a

strong likelihood of success on its appeal.

The court recognizes that aside from this factor, the other

factors do not militate strongly in favor of a stay. Respondent

has not made a particularized showing that petitioner’s release

would endanger public safety or otherwise harm the parole system

generally. Indeed, the presumption is in favor of release in

these cases and should the appellate court reverse this court’s

grant of the petition, petitioner, if released, could simply be

ordered back to prison. Presumably, as again, respondent has

made no showing of a flight risk, petitioner would return as

directed; a surety, pursuant to Rule 23(c), could also be ordered

to assure his return. Nevertheless, the court finds on balance,

that because the legal issues presented in this case raise highly

difficult questions, the resolution of which can fairly be deemed

“close calls” in light of the developing state of the law, the

court in its discretion GRANTS respondent’s application for a

stay.7

Case 2:04-cv-00518-GEB-CKD Document 35 Filed 06/25/07 Page 4 of 5
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 07-15347, Mar. 15, 2007, Ex. D to Resp.’s Reply.)

5

The court’s order of May 29, 2007, granting petitioner’s

habeas petition and ordering respondent to set a parole date for

petitioner within thirty days of the date of the order, is HEREBY

STAYED pending a decision on respondent’s appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: June 25, 2007

Case 2:04-cv-00518-GEB-CKD Document 35 Filed 06/25/07 Page 5 of 5