Stringer v. Marshall
Filing
60
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/13/15 ordering the court will grant a limited stay of the case until 05/23/15. Petitioner is ordered to file a status report on that date to inform the court of the results of the state court hearing and to request a further stay if one is needed. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LONNIE DAVID STRINGER,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:09-cv-2980-GEB-EFB P
v.
JOHN MARSHALL,
15
ORDER
Respondent.
16
Petitioner is a state prisoner with counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C.
17
18
§ 2254. On March 31, 2011, this court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the action as
19
barred by the statute of limitations contained in the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
20
Act (“AEDPA”). ECF No. 30. Later that year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
21
concluded that AEDPA’s limitations provisions are subject to an equitable exception for claims of
22
actual innocence. Lee v. Lampert, 653 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The United States
23
Supreme Court agreed in 2013. McQuiggin v. Perkins, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1924, 1928, 1933
24
(2013).
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this court’s determinations that: (1) petitioner is not
25
26
entitled to statutory tolling; (2) the federal statute of limitations began to run when petitioner’s
27
conviction became final; and (3) petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling. ECF No. 38.
28
/////
1
1
However, because this court did not consider whether petitioner qualified for the equitable
2
exception based on actual innocence, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for consideration of
3
that single issue, citing McQuiggin. Id.
4
The court ordered supplemental briefing and the state court record to address the actual
5
innocence issue. ECF No. 40. The court has received the record and the briefs. Petitioner now
6
asks the court to stay ruling on the issue until the resolution of his California Penal Code § 1405
7
motion for DNA testing, filed in Solano County Superior Court late last year. ECF No. 53.
8
Petitioner informs the court that the state court will hear the motion on May 22, 2015 and that, if
9
the motion is granted, “it is anticipated that it will take approximately 60-90 days to receive the
10
results of the DNA testing.” ECF No. 58 at 3.
11
Respondent opposed the request for stay, arguing that “[a]ny future DNA test results
12
would be barred from consideration in this Court because petitioner has not exhausted the claim
13
in the state courts.” ECF No. 55 at 2. The court rejected this argument in its April 14, 2015
14
order. ECF No. 57.
15
The court has inherent authority to manage its docket and, in the efficient pursuit of that
16
objective, may stay a case pending resolution of independent proceedings that are relevant to the
17
case before the court. Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2000). However, the court
18
has a competing obligation to resolve habeas petitions promptly. Id. at 1120. A district court
19
may not, in the interests of judicial economy, issue an indefinite and potentially lengthy stay in a
20
habeas case. Id.
21
Should the state court grant petitioner’s request for DNA analysis, such evidence would
22
certainly be relevant to the court’s resolution of whether petitioner has sufficient evidence of his
23
innocence such that the court may hear his case on the merits despite the passage of the
24
limitations period. Nevertheless, the court must not stay the case any longer than is necessary.
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
2
1
Accordingly, the court will grant a limited stay of the case until May 23, 2015. Petitioner
2
is ordered to file a status report on that date to inform the court of the results of the state court
3
hearing and to request a further stay if one is needed.
4
5
So ordered.
Dated: May 13, 2015.
6
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?