Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00132/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00132-13/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hollister George
Petitioner
W.J. Sullivan
Respondent

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

HOLLISTER GEORGE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

W.J. SULLIVAN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-CV-132 AWI MJS (HC)

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S

RENEWED MOTION FOR STAY

(Doc. No. 56)

Currently pending before the Court is Respondent’s renewed motion for stay. For the reasons

that follow, the Court will deny the motion.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner challenged the denial of a parole date through this habeas corpus proceeding. On

June 16, 2010, the Court declined to adopt a Findings and Recommendation and instead granted

Petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 22. The Court

reviewed the denial of a parole date, determined that the decision was not supported by “some

evidence,” and ordered the California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) to set a parole date within

30 days. See id. 

Respondent requested that the Court issue a stay pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

62(c), and then filed a notice of appeal. See id. at Doc. Nos. 27, 28. On June 23, 2010, the Court

declined to issue a stay. See id. at Doc. No. 29. On July 1, 2010, the Ninth Circuit also declined to

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 72 Filed 12/21/10 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

issue a stay. See id. at Doc. No. 33.

On July 7, 2010, the BPH held a hearing and calculated George’s release date. See id. at

Doc. No. 38-2. As of July 7, 2010, George had already met his calculated release date. See id. 

However, the BPH told George that the decision would not be final until the BPH en banc panel and

the Governor had reviewed the decision. See id.

On August 30, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion for immediate release pending appeal pursuant

to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 23(c). See id. at Doc. No. 38. On September 15, 2010, the

Court granted George’s motion for release pending appeal. See id. at Doc. No. 51. On September

24, 2010, the Court signed a stipulated conditions of release. See id. Respondent did not appeal this

order. On September 28, 2010, Petitioner was released under the supervision of the Federal Pretrial

Services. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 55. 

On October 29, 2010, Respondent filed a renewed motion to stay the Court’s June 16, 2010,

order. See id. at 56. The motion is based on intervening Ninth Circuit authority decided on October

12, 2010 – Haggard v. Curry, 623 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010). Haggard indicates that, when the

BPH unreasonably applies California’s ‘some evidence standard’ or makes its denial of a parole date

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence, the appropriate remedy

is a new hearing by the BPH.

On November 2, 2010, the Court set a hearing date of December 6, 2010, to decide the

motion to stay. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 59. 1

On December 1, 2010, the Court granted in part Petitioner’s motion for continuance and

moved the hearing date to December 20, 2010. See id. at Doc. No. 63. The Court has now received

all briefing on this matter. 

 RESPONDENT’S RENEWED MOTION

Respondent’s Argument

Respondent argues that the Court has the authority preserve the status quo pending an appeal. 

Petitioner filed a motion to strike Respondent’s renewed motion for stay and that motion was set for hearing on

1

December 6, 2010. Petitioner subsequently withdrew the motion to strike. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 60.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 72 Filed 12/21/10 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

Under the Hilton factors, the intervening Haggard decision makes clear that the Court ordered an

2

improper remedy when it ordered the BPH to grant Petitioner a parole date, because the proper

remedy was a new hearing. Because the Court ordered an improper remedy, Respondent argues that

it has a high probability of success on appeal. Further, the remaining Hilton factors weigh in favor of

issuing a stay as described by Haggard. That is, Petitioner will not be irreparably injured because he

is not entitled to immediate release, and the public interest weighs in favor of a stay because it allows

the responsible state agency to determine parole suitability.

Petitioner’s Opposition

Petitioner argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction. First, although the Court does

have the ability to preserve the status quo pending appeal, Respondent is requesting that the Court

actually alter the status quo. Petitioner has had his term determined and he is under supervision. 

Staying the order would undo what has already been done. Second, the application is moot because

there is no relief that the Court can provide. The BPH has calculated Petitioner’s term and that

decision is now final. That is, the BPH has already complied with the Court’s order. The Court 3

cannot turn back the clock to the day prior to the July 2010 BPH hearing. Third, Petitioner argues

that the Hilton factors do not weigh in favor of a stay. 

Discussion

The Court is not convinced that it has the authority to issue a stay. First, the writ in this case

ordered the BPH to “calculate a term for Petitioner in accordance with the requirements of California

Penal Code § 3041, with credit for time since the February 15, 2007 decision as if parole had been

granted, and any other term credit to which he is entitled by law.” Court’s Docket Doc. No. 22. On

July 7, 2010, after the Ninth Circuit declined to issue a stay, the BPH followed the directive of the

writ. In other words, the BPH already has complied with the Court’s writ, so there is nothing to stay. 

The Hilton factors are: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on

2

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.” Hilton v. Braunskill,

481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

Petitioner also points out that the time for the Governor to review the BPH’s new decision has passed, and there

3

was no reversal or modification of the BPH’s July 7, 2010, decision.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 3

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 72 Filed 12/21/10 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

See Doc. No. 85 in Eastern District of California case Valdivia v. Brown, 2:05-CV-416 FCD DAD.4

Because there is nothing for the Court to stay, Respondent’s renewed motion for stay of the Court’s

June 16, 2010, writ appears moot. See id.

Second, as both parties acknowledge, the purpose of a stay pending appeal is to preserve the

status quo. See Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2001); Natural Resources

Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001). Citing

Natural Resources and Mayweathers, Respondent argues that the status quo is the situation that

existed at the time of the appeal. However, the circumstances of those cases are different from this

case. In Natural Resources, the district court made minor modifications to an existing injunction and

the modifications did not materially alter the status quo. See Natural Resources, 242 F.3d at 1165-

67. In Mayweathers, the district court issued a second injunction, which was identical to the first,

because the first injunction was set to expire. Mayweathers, 258 F.3d at 934-35. The second

injunction simply continued the first injunction, which was issued prior to the time of the appeal. 

See id. 

Both Mayweathers and Natural Resources involved injunctions that had been issued prior to

an appeal. In contrast, no injunction or stay was issued prior to Respondent’s appeal, and neither this

Court nor the Ninth Circuit took steps to preserve the status quo as of the time of Respondent’s

appeal. Since the time of the appeal, the circumstances of the case have changed dramatically: the

Ninth Circuit declined to issue a stay, the BPH held its hearing and issued a parole date, the Court

ordered George released under Pre-Trial Services supervision, Respondent did not challenge that

order, George has been released, and by all accounts his programming during supervised release has

been successful. Respondent’s motion would significantly change the now existing status quo. In

In Valdivia v. Brown, Judge Damrell of this district issued a writ on March 14, 2008, that provided for essentially

4

identical relief as the writ in the case at bar. See Doc. No. 46 in Eastern District of California Case No. 2:05-cv-416 FCD

DAD. The Ninth Circuit initially stayed the writ, but in May 2010 lifted the stay. See id. at Doc. No. 60-2. After the stay

was lifted, the BPH set a parole date that Valdivia had already reached. See id. at Doc. No. 60-1. Valdivia then moved for

release pending the appeal, and the motion was granted. See id. at Doc. Nos. 73-76. Following the issuance of Haggard,

Respondent filed a motion to stay the March 14, 2008, writ order. See id. at Doc. No. 81. In denying the motion to stay on

December 8, 2010, Judge Damrell explained: “Because the [BPH] calculated a term for Petitioner in accordance with the

requirements of California Penal Code § 3041(a) and set a date for release, and because Petitioner has been released, the

court’s March 14, 2008, order has been fully executed. As such, there is nothing for the court to stay. [footnote omitted]

Accordingly, respondent’s motoin to stay is DENIED as MOOT.” Id. at Doc. No. 85.

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 4

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 72 Filed 12/21/10 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

light of the posture of this case, it is not clear that returning to the state of affairs of June 2010 is

appropriate. 

 CONCLUSION

Respondent renews its motion to stay the Court’s June 16, 2010, writ order. Respondent has

not shown that a stay is appropriate. First, the writ has been executed by the BPH. Because the writ

has been executed, there is nothing for the Court to stay. As such, the renewed motion to stay the

June 2010 writ order appears to be moot. Second, the Court may issue a stay or injunction in order

to preserve the status quo, but otherwise loses jurisdiction once an appeal is filed. However, stays

have previously been denied by this Court and the Ninth Circuit in this case, and the status quo has

changed significantly since Respondent’s appeal in June 2010. Respondent has not shown that it is

appropriate to look at the status quo as it existed in June 2010. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s renewed motion for stay is

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 21, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 5

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 72 Filed 12/21/10 Page 5 of 5