Zepeda v. USA

Filing 35

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the Parties' 34 Motion to Continue Stay, filed September 16, 2019 be GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the consideration of this matter continue to be STAYED until further order of the Court and the par ties be required to file a status report regarding the continuance of the stay: (1) within 30 days of the issuance of any decision on the Motion for Rehearing by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Orona, 923 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2019); and (2) i n any event on or before March 16, 2020, and every three months thereafter. This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge James F Metcalf on 9/17/19. (GMP)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7

Damien Miguel Zepeda,
Movant/Defendant
-vsUnited States of America,
Respondent/Plaintiff.

8
9
10

CV-17-1229-PHX-ROS (JFM)
CR-08-1329-PHX-ROS
Report & Recommendation
on Joint Motion to Stay

11

Under consideration is the Parties' Joint Status Report/Motion to Continue Stay

12

filed September 16, 2019 (Doc. 34). The parties, including Movant who is represented

13

by counsel, seek a continuation of a stay of the briefing schedule pending the Ninth

14

Circuit’s anticipated en banc decision on motion for rehearing in United States v. Orona,

15

923 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2019). The parties previously obtained stays to await decisions

16

by the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498, and the Ninth Circuit in United

17

States v. Begay, No. 14-10080. (See Order 8/14/18, Doc. 25; Order 2/22/19, Doc. 30.)

18

Decisions have now been issued in both of those cases, but the parties contend the

19

requested en banc review in Orona could now be the lynchpin of at least part of this case.

20

Movant’s Motion to Vacate (Doc. 1) was filed on April 25, 2017.1 Movant argues

21

that his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and resulting 85 year sentences must be

22

vacated based on the reasoning and holding of Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551

23

(2015), as construed by Dimaya v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2015).2 A Response

24
25
26
27
28

1

Respondent has conceded that the Motion is timely. (Answer, Doc. 13 at 12.)
Accordingly, the recent decision in U.S. v. Blackstone, 903 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2018) does
not foreclose Movant’s right to relief. In Blackstone, the court concluded an untimely
Johnson claim attacking a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) was not subject to 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1) which permits a delayed commencement of the limitations period for
new rules of law.
2

On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct.
-1-

1

(Doc. 13) to the Motion to Vacate was filed on July 12, 2017. Movant has requested

2

several extensions to reply (Docs. 14, 16) which were granted (Docs. 15, 17). Movant

3

has not yet replied in support of his Motion to Vacate.

4

The parties previously obtained stays to await in Dimaya and Begay. On April 17,

5

2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S.Ct. 1204 (2018),

6

affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision extending Johnson to 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), thereby

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

invalidating its residual clause, and effectively that of § 924(c). On August 19, 2019, in
United States v. Begay, 2019 WL 3884261 (2019), the Ninth Circuit followed a panel
decision in United States v. Orona, 923 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2019) that relied on FernandezRuiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121, 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) to conclude that
reckless conduct did not qualify as a crime of violence under the elements test. The
Government argued (as it does here) unsuccessfully that Fernadez-Ruiz had been
effectively overruled by the decision in Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016).
Both Begay and Orona relied on a three-judge panel’s obligation to follow existing
Ninth Circuit precedent unless “clearly irreconcilable” with Voisine. See Begay, 2019 WL
3884261, at *5 and Orona, 923 F.3d at 1203. On August 22, 2019, the United States filed
a petition for rehearing en banc in Orona. (CR 17-17508, Doc. 53.) If the petition for
rehearing en banc is granted, the Ninth Circuit will have the opportunity to address

18

whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Voisine is irreconcilable with Fernandez-Ruiz

19

and its determination that “crimes of violence” cannot be committed recklessly.

20

determination could be dispositive of Movant’s challenged to Count 3, Use of a Firearm

21

During a Crime of Violence (Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury).

That

22

Necessity of Order – The Court’s Order stayed this case by granting Movant’s

23

various motions. Although not an explicit limitation on the stay, the rationale for the stay

24

was the pendency of Dimaya and Begay.

25

Accordingly, in the ordinary course, the stay would now be vacated, briefing completed,

26

and a ruling issued. Continuing the stay should be effected by a new order.

Neither of those cases is now pending.

27
28

1204 (2018), affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision extending Johnson to 18 U.S.C. §
16(b).
-2-

1

Magistrate Judge Authority - The grant of a motion to stay may be deemed

2

dispositive of a habeas petitioner’s claims because it arguably effectively precludes some

3

of the relief sought (e.g. the potential of immediate - or at least sooner – release from

4

custody). See S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013)

5

(denial of stay that did not effectively deny any ultimate relief sought was non-dispositive)

6

and PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10, 14 (1st Cir. 2010) (ruling on a motion

7

to stay civil litigation pending arbitration is not dispositive of either the case or any claim

8

or defense within it). But see Mitchell v. Valenzuela, 791 F.3d 1166, 1167 (9th Cir. 2015)

9

(denial of stay to exhaust state remedies effectively dispositive of claims); and Bastidas v.

10

Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir. 2015) (same). Dispositive matters may not be

11

heard directly by a magistrate judge in a case heard on referral, but must be addressed by

12

way of a report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

13

Here, the fact that Movant has requested the stay diminishes concerns that the

14

motion could be considered dispositive. Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, the

15

undersigned addresses the matter by way of this Report and Recommendation.

16

Applicable Law - Generally, this court has authority to stay consideration of a case.

17

A court's power to stay proceedings pending the resolution of another case is “incidental

18

to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket

19

with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North

20

American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). See also Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276

21

(2005) (“District courts do ordinarily have authority to issue stays, where such a stay

22

would be a proper exercise of discretion.”) (citing Landis). “A district court has inherent

23

power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote

24

economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall,

25

300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)

26

Ordinarily, the propriety of a requested stay is determined by the weighing of “the

27

competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay.”

28

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “Among these competing
-3-

1

interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship

2

or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly

3

course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof,

4

and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at

5

268.

6

And, ordinarily, judicial economy is a legitimate consideration in determining the

7

need for a stay. For example, a “trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its

8

own docket, and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it,

9

pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v.

10

Certified Grocers of California, 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979).

11

However, in the context of habeas cases, “special considerations” are implicated

12

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

13

judicial economy.” See Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000). This is because

14

a habeas proceeding is intended to be a swift remedy to illegal confinement, and the

15

statutes mandate that the courts give habeas petitions special preference on their calendars.

16

Id.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Consequently, although a short stay may be appropriate in a
habeas case to await a determination in a parallel case in the same
court, or to allow a state to prepare for a retrial of a successful
petitioner, we have never authorized, in the interests of judicial
economy, an indefinite, potentially lengthy stay in a habeas case.
Nor do we now. “The writ of habeas corpus, challenging
illegality of detention, is reduced to a sham if ... trial courts do not act
within a reasonable time.” A long stay also threatens to create the
perception that courts are more concerned with efficient trial
management than with the vindication of constitutional rights.
Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) (quoting Jones v.
Shell, 572 F.2d 1278, 1280 (8th Cir.1978)).
In Yong, the Ninth Circuit held that a district court had abused its discretion in
staying habeas proceedings pending a decision in a pending appeal called Ma that raised
similar issues. The Ninth Circuit held that the stay, which would last for an indefinite
period of time, placed a “significant burden” on the petitioner by delaying progress on his
-4-

1

petition contending that the INS was unconstitutionally detaining him. See Yong, 208 F.3d

2

at 1120–21. The Yong panel reversed the stay-pending-decision even though the related

3

appeal in question, Ma, had been placed on an expedited schedule.

4

Application to this Motion - In this case, the asserted bases for a stay have been

5

the interests of uniform interpretation of the law and judicial economy. In requesting a

6

continuation of the stay, the parties argue that Orona will be informative. Under Yong,

7

the undersigned would ordinarily conclude that a stay would be inappropriate, given that

8

(despite expectations) there is no guarantee that a decision in the case will be issued in the

9

near future, or that it will ultimately be dispositive, or even necessarily informative (i.e.

10

because it may be resolved on a procedural or other unexpected basis). Here, however,

11

Movant has requested the stay and Respondent has joined in the request. And the greatest

12

risk of harm from a stay is to Movant, who is requesting the stay. Consequently, it appears

13

that the normal special concerns raised in Yong do not apply, and that no prejudice to

14

Movant is likely from the requested stay.

15

Moreover, the parties argue: “Petitioner received a sentence of 120 months on

16

Count 3 and consecutive sentences of 300 months each on the remaining § 924(c) counts.

17

His sentence totaled 1,083 months’ imprisonment. His current release date is January 3,

18

2089. As a result, Petitioner is not currently in any danger of overstaying his sentence,

19

even if this Court were to find in his favor and reverse his conviction for Count 3.”

20

(Motion, Doc. 34 at 6.)

21

Given the potential that the decision in Orona may assist the Court and the parties

22

in resolving the issues in this case, and result in economies to not only the Court, but to

23

the parties, and increase the likelihood of a uniform application of the law as determined

24

in those cases, the undersigned finds good cause to grant the stay.

25

However, given the potential that the stay could become protracted, the Court

26

should continue to require updates on the subject cases after the expected time for

27

decisions and/or upon such decisions, to permit the Court to re-evaluate whether a

28

continued stay is appropriate.
-5-

1
2
3
4
5

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED:
(A) The Parties’ Motion to Continue Stay, filed September 16, 2019 (Doc. 34) be
GRANTED.
(B) The consideration of this matter continue to be STAYED until further order of the
Court.

6

(C) The parties be required to file a status report regarding the continuance of the stay:

7

(1) within 30 days of the issuance of any decision on the Motion for Rehearing by the

8

Ninth Circuit in United States v. Orona, 923 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2019); and (2) in

9

any event on or before March 16, 2020, and every three months thereafter.

10
11

EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

12

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

13

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

14

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment.

15

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall

16

have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

17

which to file specific written objections with the Court. Thereafter, the parties have

18

fourteen (14) days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file

19

objections to any findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered

20

a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United States v.

21

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute a waiver

22

of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered

23

pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143,

24

1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).

25
26

Dated: September 17, 2019

James F. Metcalf
United States Magistrate Judge

17-1229-034o Order 19 09 16 on Joint Motion to Stay.docx

27
28
-6-