Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cr-00014/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cr-00014-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fernando Casas
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

PlaintiffRespondent,

v.

FERNANDO CASAS,

DefendantPetitioner.

CASE NO. 1:13-CR-00014-LJO-SKO

ORDER DENYING GOVERNMENT’S 

MOTION TO STAY AND RE-SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

(ECF NO. 34)

On August 12, 2016, the Government filed a motion to stay Petitioner Fernando Casas’s

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (“§ 2255”). See ECF 

No. 34. The Government’s motion was based upon the fact that the United States Supreme Court 

granted certiorari in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, to decide (1) whether the holding of 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2016), applies to the residual clause of Sentencing 

Guideline § 4B1.2(a)(2); and if so, (2), whether Johnson’s invalidation of the residual clause of 

Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.2(a)(2) applies retroactively on collateral review. ECF No. 34 at 2. The 

Government argues that because Beckles will likely decide the application of Johnson to the 

Sentencing Guidelines or the retroactivity question presented in the instant case (or both), and 

because the Supreme Court will likely decide Beckles by June 2017, the Court should stay 

Petitioner’s § 2255 motion until Beckles is decided for purposes of judicial efficiency. Id.

Petitioner filed an opposition to the Government’s motion, arguing that he would likely 

suffer irreparable damage should the Court stay his § 2255 motion, and that the Government has not 

demonstrated sufficient hardship to warrant a stay in this case. ECF No. 35 at 2-10. Petitioner 

additionally notes that the Ninth Circuit decided to lift stays in two cases with similar issues 

Case 1:13-cr-00014-LJO-SKO Document 38 Filed 09/30/16 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

2

(Gardner v. United States, No. 15-72559 and Jacob v. United States, No. 15-73302), 

notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Beckles, and that many district 

courts within the Ninth Circuit have since followed suit. Id. at 6-9. 

On August 25, 2016, the Government filed an amended reply to Petitioner’s opposition to the 

motion for stay, as well as an opposition on the merits to Petitioner’s motion under § 2255. ECF No. 

37. The Government notes that the Ninth Circuit’s decisions in Jacob and Gardner did not prohibit 

district courts from exercising discretion to stay cases implicating Beckles, that district courts have 

taken a varied approach to deciding whether to issue stays, and that the Government will face 

hardship if forced to litigate numerous petitions on this issue. Id. at 2-7.

“A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own court under Landis v. 

North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th 

Cir. 2005). Citing Landis, the Ninth Circuit has instructed that in determining whether to grant a 

stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must 

be weighed,” including “the possible damage which may result from the granting of the stay,” the

“the hardship or equity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and “the orderly 

course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating ... questions of law which 

could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. at 1110 (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 

(9th Cir. 1962)). In the habeas context, the Court must also “balance the length of the stay against 

the strength of the justification given for it.” Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) 

Using this framework, the Court finds that a stay is inappropriate in this case. The Court 

acknowledges that staying Petitioner’s § 2255 motion until the Supreme Court rules on Beckles 

would serve the interests of judicial economy by streamlining the resolution of a relevant question of 

law in this case. See ECF No. 34 at 1-2. However, the Supreme Court may not issue a decision in 

Beckles until June 2017, and Petitioner’s current projected release date is March 27, 2019. ECF No. 

35 at 2. If the Court delays ruling on Petitioner’s case until the Supreme Court issues a ruling in 

Beckles, and Petitioner is successful on the merits of his § 2255 motion, there is a possibility that he 

would serve excess time under an unconstitutional sentence. Thus, Petitioner has demonstrated at 

least “a fair possibility” that he would suffer damage if the Court stays this case, such that would 

Case 1:13-cr-00014-LJO-SKO Document 38 Filed 09/30/16 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

3

outweigh the Court’s interest in judicial economy at this time. See Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. 

Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Yong, 208 F.3d at 1120 (“habeas 

proceedings implicate special considerations that place unique limits on a district court’s authority to 

stay a case in the interests of judicial economy.”). Furthermore, the Court finds the Government’s 

argument that it will suffer hardship from having to litigate numerous petitions implicating Beckles 

issues unavailing. ECF No. 37 at 7. “[B]eing required to defend a suit if the stay is vacated, does not 

constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.” Dependable 

Highway, 498 F.3d at 1066. Because it is uncertain exactly when the Supreme Court will issue a 

ruling in Beckles and the Government has failed to make an adequate showing of hardship it would 

suffer if required to go forward in this case, the considerations set forth in Yong also weigh against 

granting the Government’s request. See 208 F.3d at 1119. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Government’s motion to stay this case. Since the 

Government has already filed its opposition to Petitioner’s § 2255 motion, see ECF No. 37 at 7-20, 

Petitioner shall have 10 calendar days to file a reply. At that point, the Court will determine 

whether or not it needs oral argument. If not, and if the Petitioner prevails on his § 2255 motion, resentencing will be set. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cr-00014-LJO-SKO Document 38 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 3