Tran v. USA

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh Denying 7 Motion to Stay Petition. (lhklc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

NHAN LE TRAN,
Petitioner,

13
14
15

Case No. 16-CV-03484-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
PETITION

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

16
17
18

On October 19, 2016, the government filed a motion to stay petition under 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 2255. ECF No. 7. The government’s motion requested that, pending the United States Supreme

20

Court’s decision in Lynch v. Dimaya, 2016 WL 3232911 (Sep. 29, 2016), the Court stay

21

proceedings on Petitioner Nhan Le Tran’s (“Petitioner”) motion to vacate his conviction. ECF

22

No. 7, at 1.

23

Under Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936), the Court has “discretionary

24

power to stay proceedings in its own court.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th

25

Cir. 2005). In considering whether to exercise its discretion to grant a stay, a court should weigh

26

three factors: “[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the

27

hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly

28

1
Case No. 16-CV-03484-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PETITION

1

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

2

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

3

265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.”

4

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). If there is “even a fair

5

possibility” of harm to the opposing party, the moving party “must make out a clear case of

6

hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.

7

The government has not met its burden of establishing a need for a stay of proceedings

8

pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dimaya. The Ninth Circuit in Dimaya v.

9

Lynch, 803 F.3d 1110, 1120 (9th Cir. 2015), held that the definition of “crime of violence” in the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), was unconstitutionally vague

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct.

12

2551 (2015), which held that the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”)

13

was unconstitutionally vague. On September 29, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted

14

certiorari to review Dimaya. See 2016 WL 3232911. On January 17, 2017, the United States

15

Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dimaya.

16

Here, however, Petitioner was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) for conspiracy to

17

commit a Hobbs Act robbery. See ECF No. 1, at 6. Petitioner’s § 2255 petition asserts that the

18

Court’s holding in Johnson, 135 S. Ct. at 2557, renders the “residual clause” of § 924(c)

19

unconstitutionally vague, and thus Petitioner argues that his conviction under § 924(c) violates due

20

process. ECF No. 1, at 4. Thus, Petitioner’s conviction and sentence is not directly implicated by

21

the holding in Dimaya, which applied Johnson to the INA. Dimaya, 803 F.3d at 1120.

22

Moreover, a stay in this case pending a United States Supreme Court decision will

23

prejudice Petitioner in that it will delay this Court’s consideration of Petitioner’s motion to vacate

24

his conviction. In contrast to this hardship on Petitioner, the government asserts only that “[a] stay

25

will promote efficiency.” ECF No. 5, at 3. However, this falls short of a showing under Landis of

26

“a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.

27

Furthermore, this Court and other district courts within this Circuit have denied requests to stay

28

2
Case No. 16-CV-03484-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PETITION

1

§ 2255 petitions pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dimaya. See, e.g., Than

2

v. United States, Case No. 5:16-CV-3542-LHK, ECF No. 6 (denying stay pending Dimaya);

3

United States v. Carmaco, 2016 WL 5897735, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (same).

4

Accordingly, the government’s motion to stay petition is DENIED.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: February 9, 2017
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 16-CV-03484-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PETITION