Reed v. Ayers

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denying 6 respondent's Motion to Stay; denying 8 petitioner's Motion to grant habeas relief; Answer to be filed by 6/12/2009; Traverse to be filed by 7/24/2009 (Attachments: # 1 CertServ) (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JESSE L. REED, Petitioner, v. ROBERT L. AYERS, warden, Respondent. / No. C 08-2858 MHP (pr) ORDER In this habeas action, petitioner has challenged a decision by the Board of Parole Hearings that found him not suitable for parole. The matter is now before the court for consideration of respondent's motion for a stay pending a decision in a particular paroledenial case pending in the Ninth Circuit that may resolve some or all of the issues in this case and petitioner's motion for habeas relief due to respondent's "failure to prosecute." In Hayward v. Marshall, 9th Cir. Case No. 06-55392, the panel's published decision, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), was vacated when rehearing en banc was granted on May 16, 2008. The en banc oral argument took place on June 24, 2008, and the parties have finished their original briefing, as well as two supplemental rounds of briefing. Although it is likely that Hayward will provide guidance for analyzing parole denial cases, there is no set date for a decision in Hayward. Due to the absence of a set date for a decision in Hayward, the court will not stay this action pending a decision in Hayward. See Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1120-22 (9th Cir. 2000) (it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to stay a habeas petition indefinitely pending resolution of a different case involving parallel issues on the basis of judicial economy). The motion for a stay is DENIED. (Docket # 6.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner's motion for the court to grant habeas relief due to respondent's failure to prosecute is DENIED. (Docket # 8.) Respondent did not fail to defend this action: respondent had filed a motion to stay the action and reasonably was waiting for a ruling on that motion because the ruling could affect the deadline for filing an answer. In light of the denial of the motion to stay, the court now sets the following briefing schedule: Respondent must file and serve his answer no later than June 12, 2009. Petitioner must file and serve his traverse no later than July 24, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: March 11, 2009 Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge 2

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?