Stanley v. Calderon

Filing 1005

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/18/2015 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 965 are ADOPTED in FULL; and Respondent's 942 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY F. STANLEY, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, No. 2:95-CV-1500 JAM CKD DEATH PENALTY CASE v. WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison, ORDER Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner under sentence of death, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In April 2013, the Court adopted the magistrate 19 judge’s findings that Petitioner had not exhausted all claims in state court, and issued a stay 20 pending exhaustion. (ECF No. 903.) In October 2014, Respondent filed this motion to dismiss, 21 arguing that the admittedly lawful stay has “transformed into” an unlawful abuse of discretion. 22 (ECF No. 942.) The magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations suggesting that the 23 Court deny the motion. (ECF No. 965.) Respondent timely filed objections. (ECF No. 976.) 24 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Furthermore, for the reasons 26 discussed below, the Court overrules Respondent’s objections. 27 28 Respondent raises two arguments in his objections. He first responds to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that his argument is “extremely belated” because he already “had an 1 1 opportunity to challenge the stay by objecting to the [January 2013] Findings and 2 Recommendations” and “did not do so.” F&R at 4:14-17. Respondent asserts that his motion is 3 now timely, because the stay “was initially lawful but became unlawful when it became clear that 4 it was indefinite[.]” Obj. at 4:2. 5 Respondent’s argument fails because he cited no authority to support this theory that a 6 stay that is “lawful” when issued can “transform[] into” an unlawful stay, or that a stay that is not 7 an abuse of discretion can become “a clear abuse of discretion” at a later date. See Obj. at 2:14- 8 15, 3:26. Respondent’s argument relies on Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) for the 9 proposition that an indefinite stay constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Obj. at 2-3. Rhines 10 indeed established the standard for issuing a stay to allow a petitioner to exhaust unexhausted 11 claims in a “mixed” petition. See 544 U.S. at 277-78. But the case says nothing about whether or 12 when a court abuses its discretion by failing to alter a stay that it previously issued. Respondent 13 concedes that the stay was lawful as issued in 2013 and he cites no authority under which a court 14 could find that the same stay has become unlawful two years later. The Court therefore overrules 15 Respondent’s first objection. 16 Respondent’s second contention is that the magistrate judge erred by “impos[ing] the 17 burden of show [sic] lack of merit on Respondent[.]” Obj. at 5:17. Respondent’s brief then 18 launches into a lengthy discussion of the merits, apparently in response to the magistrate judge’s 19 observation that his motion provided no basis or argument for the proposition that the claims are 20 meritless. See F&R at 5; Obj. at 5-20. The Court overrules this objection and disregards the 21 merits discussion, because whoever bears the burden of proving that the claims have or lack 22 merit, the issue does not bear on the outcome of this motion to dismiss. Indeed, Respondent 23 wishes the Court to consider the merits as part of the Rhines inquiry. See Obj. at 5. But as 24 discussed above, Respondent has provided no legal basis for applying Rhines to this two-year-old 25 stay. The Court therefore rejects Respondent’s second argument. 26 27 28 2 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 3, 2014 are adopted in full; and 3 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 942) is DENIED. 4 DATED: March 18, 2015 5 /s/ John A. Mendez_______________________ 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?