Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02041/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-02041-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Eddie Lee Hatch, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-16-02041-PHX-JJT (MHB)

 CR 02-01016-PHX-JJT 

ORDER 

 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) delivered in this matter by 

United States Magistrate Judge Michelle Burns (Doc. 11), recommending that the Court 

grant Respondent United States of America’s motion to stay this matter until the Supreme 

Court of the United States renders a decision in the now-pending matter of Beckles v. 

United States, No. 15-8544, -- U.S. --, 136 S. Ct. 2510, 2016 WL 1029080 (cert. granted 

June 27, 2016). Petitioner Eddie Lee Hatch has filed an Objection to the R&R (Doc. 12) 

and Respondent has filed a Response to that Objection (Doc. 13), both of which the Court 

has now considered with the R&R. 

 The Court adopts in whole Judge Burns’s reasoning in the R&R for granting the 

stay. Issuance of the stay pending resolution of a matter that is before the Supreme Court 

during the present term will not injure Petitioner, substantially or otherwise, because the 

portion of his sentence for which he does not seek resentencing – the 87 month sentence 

for the new bank robbery offense – will not nearly have elapsed by the time the Supreme 

Court has provided any necessary guidance in its resolution of Beckles. The Court 

Case 2:16-cv-02041-JJT Document 14 Filed 10/21/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

TERMPSREF 

therefore will follow the R&R insofar as it recommends the granting of Respondent’s 

Motion for Stay (Doc. 6). 

 Petitioner points out, and Respondent agrees, that Respondent sought an extension 

of only 14 days after issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Beckles to file its 

Response to the Petition in this matter. The Court therefore will not follow the R&R 

insofar as it recommends granting Respondent 30 days after the decision in Beckles

issues to file its Response, and will allow only 14 days. 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting in part, as set forth above, the R&R and its reasoning. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Respondent’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 6) and 

staying this matter until the Supreme Court of the United States issues its decision in 

Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544. If the Supreme Court renders no decision in 

Beckles during the term, either party may move to lift the stay. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s Response/Opposition to 

Petitioner’s 2255 Petition shall be due no later than 14 days after issuance of the decision 

in Beckles. 

 Dated this 20th day of October, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-02041-JJT Document 14 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 2