Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03153/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03153-1/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

RONALD ALBERT WILLIS,

Petitioner,

v.

A. P. KANE, warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 05-3153 MHP (pr)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL AND

GRANTING TEMPORARY 5-DAY

STAY

Respondent has applied for a stay of the court’s April 26, 2007 Order Granting

Habeas Petition pending appeal. The application was made under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 23, which provides: "Pending review of a decision ordering the release of a

prisoner in such a [habeas] proceeding, the prisoner shall be enlarged upon the prisoner's

recognizance, with or without surety, unless the court or justice or judge rendering the

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

shall otherwise order." Fed. R. App. P. 23(c). Although Rule 23(c) gives the court broad

discretion to consider whether to stay the release, it also creates a presumption of release of

the prisoner unless the court otherwise orders. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 774

(1987). Factors to consider in determining whether to issue a stay of release are generally the

same as those governing stays of civil judgments: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a

strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be

irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the

other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Id. at 776. 

The court also must be mindful that a habeas case has unique considerations because it

Case 3:05-cv-03153-MHP Document 18 Filed 05/17/07 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

springs from a state court's criminal conviction and may involve the abrupt release of a

prisoner from custody. 

The difficulty here is that the court did not actually order petitioner’s release but only

that the parole authority set a release date. The court explained:

Having decided that the petition will be granted, the next issue concerns the proper

remedy. Because Willis has never been found suitable for parole, the BPH has never

moved past the suitability-finding function in California Penal Code § 3041(b) to

calculate a term and set a release date as required by § 3041(a). It is now time to do

so. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the BPH must calculate a term for

Willis and set a date for his release in accordance with the requirements of California

Penal Code § 3041(a). This does not necessarily mean that the release date must

occur within thirty days of the date of this order, but rather that the [BPH] must act

within that time limit. Within forty days of the date of this order, respondent must file

a notice with the court identifying the date set for Willis' release. 

Order Granting Habeas Petition, p. 15 (emphasis added). Respondent’s motion is premised

largely on the alleged irreparable injury and danger to public safety that will occur if

petitioner is released from custody. However, petitioner will be released only if the BPH sets

a release date and if that release date has already passed, e.g., if the BPH determines that the

petitioner should have been released months or years ago. Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 23 does not appear to apply, as this court issued neither a decision “not to release a

prisoner,” see Fed. R. App. P. 23(b), nor a decision “ordering the release of a prisoner,” see

 Fed. R. App. P. 23(c). Respondent’s filing of a notice of appeal ended this court’s

jurisdiction to modify or supersede the order being appealed to make it fit within Rule 23. 

Although the court denies the application for a stay pending appeal, it grants a 

temporary stay of the April 26, 2007 Order Granting Habeas Petition, such stay to last until

five days from the date of this order so that respondent may file in the Ninth Circuit an

application for a Rule 23 stay or any other application for interim relief pending the appeal. 

See 9th Cir. R. 27-2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 17, 2007 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03153-MHP Document 18 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 2