Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02515/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02515-1/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES G. REECE, 

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 13-2515 SI (pr)

ORDER LIFTING STAY,

REOPENING ACTION, AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Charles G. Reece, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed this pro se action for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the

grounds that the petition was untimely and failed to state a federal question. On November 4,

2013, the court found that the action was not time-barred and that there was a cognizable Ex Post

Facto Clause claim in that Reece had alleged that his right to be free from ex post facto laws was

violated when the BPH denied him parole for five years pursuant to the statute as amended by

Proposition 9 in 2008. Docket # 9. However, the court decided in that same order to stay this

action until the Ninth Circuit decided another pending case raising the same issue. The court

explained: 

The Ninth Circuit issued a certificate of appealability in a pending case on the issue of

whether an ex post facto challenge to the application of Proposition 9/Marsy's Law is

cognizable in a federal habeas proceeding, and heard oral argument in the matter on

August 12, 2013. See Burnight v. Swarthout, Ninth Cir. Case No. 11-16062. [¶] In light

of the fact that the Ninth Circuit has a case in which it will decide the same issue

presented by Reece’s petition and will do so in a case that is far-advanced and already has

had oral argument, it would be an unnecessary consumption of judicial resources for this

court to decide the issue at this time. By waiting for the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the

court avoids the possibility of having to decide the same issue twice– once now and once

again after Burnight. Therefore, this action will be stayed until a decision issues in

Case 3:13-cv-02515-SI Document 10 Filed 05/07/15 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

2

Burnight or further order of this court. After Burnight is decided, the court will set a

briefing schedule on the ex post facto claim, unless Burnight rules that such a claim may

not be pursued in a federal habeas action. 

Docket # 9 at 7.

On April 30, 2015, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Burnight case as moot after the

prisoner in that case was released from custody. The court now will set a briefing schedule

because no guidance on the ex post facto claim will be coming in the Burnight case.

Accordingly:

1. The STAY is now LIFTED. The clerk will REOPEN this action which had been

administratively closed.

2. Respondent must file and serve upon petitioner, on or before July 17, 2015, an

answer conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent must file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the parole proceedings that have been previously transcribed and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse

with the court and serving it on respondent on or before August 14, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2015 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02515-SI Document 10 Filed 05/07/15 Page 2 of 2