Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00680/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00680-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James D. Hartley
Respondent
Manuel Atienza Wagan
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL ATIENZA WAGAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

1: 08 CV 00680 LJO WMW HC

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION

FOR STAY

[Doc. 10] 

Petitioner is a prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. Section 2254. 

On August 5, 2008, Respondent filed a motion for stay of the proceedings pending the Ninth

Circuit’s en banc review in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9 Cir.2008), reh’g en banc th

granted, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2131400, No. 06-55392 (9 Cir. May 16, 2008). Petitioner filed an

th

opposition to the motion on September 8, 2008.

DISCUSSION

As Respondent notes, the Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that this Court “may, with

Case 1:08-cv-00680-LJO-WMW Document 14 Filed 09/15/08 Page 1 of 3
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

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 Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9 Cir.1979). However, the Ninth Circuit th

has also determined that “once a federal circuit court issues a decision, the district courts within that

circuit are bound to follow it and have no authority to await a ruling by the Supreme Court before

applying the circuit court's decision as binding authority.” Yong v. Immigration and Naturalization

Service, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 n. 2 (9 Cir.2000). In addition, “habeas proceedings implicate special

th

considerations that place unique limits on a district court's authority to stay a case in the interests of

judicial economy.” Yong, 208 F.3d at 1120. “Special solicitude is required because the writ is

intended to be a ‘swift and imperative remedy in all cases of illegal restraint or confinement.’” Id.,

quoting Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 400 (1963). In Yong, the Ninth Circuit addressed an analogous 

situation where the district court issued a stay pending a decision from the Supreme Court. The

Ninth Circuit found that although considerations of judicial economy are appropriate, they cannot

justify an indefinite and potentially lengthy stay of a habeas proceeding. Id. at 1120-21.

Consequently, the Ninth Circuit ruled the district court abused its discretion in granting a stay.

In this case Respondent asks the Court to stay the proceedings pending a decision in

Hayward. Like Yong, such a stay would be lengthy. As well, this is a habeas proceeding and

therefore implicates special considerations that limit the Court’s authority to issue a stay. But more

importantly, as Petitioner points out, there is ample binding precedent from the Ninth Circuit other

than Hayward which bear on the issues in the petition. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457

(1985); Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914 (9 Cir.2003); Sass v. California Board of Prison th

Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9 Cir.2006); Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851 (9 Cir.2007). th th

Pursuant to Yong, this Court has no authority to await a further ruling from the Ninth Circuit before

applying these binding precedents. 208 F.3d at 1119 n. 2.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:08-cv-00680-LJO-WMW Document 14 Filed 09/15/08 Page 2 of 3
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

///

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Respondent’s motion for stay is DENIED; 

2) All dates currently set in this action shall remain pending subject to further order of the

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00680-LJO-WMW Document 14 Filed 09/15/08 Page 3 of 3