Mosley v. Wong

Filing 17

ORDER STAYING CASES pending Court of Appeals Case Nos. 08-15327 and 08-15389 (appeals from Case No. C05-4260 TEH). Parties to file stipulated briefing schedules or stipulations to dismiss within fourteen days of the issuance of the mandate. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 07/14/11. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

RON MOSLEY,

6

Petitioner,

7
8

NO. C09-1749 TEH
ORDER STAYING CASES

v.
MICHAEL MARTEL,1

9

Respondent.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
RON MOSLEY,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

NO. C10-4907 TEH

v.
MICHAEL MARTEL,

15

Respondent.

16
17

In these cases, Petitioner Ron Mosley challenges denials of parole by the Board of

18 Parole Hearings in 2007 and 2008. In a related case, Case No. C05-4260 TEH, Mosley
19 challenges the Governor’s reversal of the Board’s grant of parole in 2005. The 2005 case is
20 currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Mosley
21 remains released on bail under supervision of this district’s Office of Pretrial Services
22 pending that appeal.
23

The Court agrees with Mosley that it is appropriate to stay these cases until after his

24 appeal of the 2005 case has been decided on the merits. If the Court of Appeals decides that
25 Mosley should have been released in 2005, then these cases will be moot. In addition,
26
27

1

Michael Martel, acting warden at San Quentin State Prison, the facility from which
Petitioner is currently released on bail, is hereby substituted as Respondent in these cases
28 pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1 Mosley acknowledges that the only relief available to him in these cases is a new parole
2 hearing, which Respondent argues cannot occur as long as Mosley remains released on bail
3 pending a decision in the 2005 case.
4

The Court further agrees that Respondent should have an opportunity to submit a

5 revised answer in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct.
6 859, 862 (2011) (per curiam), and any other relevant new authority.
7

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that these cases

8 are STAYED pending resolution by the Court of Appeals of Mosley’s challenge to the
9 Governor’s reversal of the Board’s 2005 grant of parole. Within fourteen days of the

11 and confer and file stipulated briefing schedules in these cases or, alternatively, stipulations
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10 issuance of the mandate in those cases, Nos. 08-15327 and 08-15389, the parties shall meet

12 to dismiss on mootness grounds.
13
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16 Dated: 07/14/11
17

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2