Peck v. United States of America

Filing 8

ORDER denying 3 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11

JOSEPH ROSS PECK,
Petitioner,

12
13
14

v.

13-CR-5002 RJB
ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

15
16

CASE NO. 16-CV-5454 RJB

This matter comes before the Court on the United States of America’s Motion to Stay

17 Decision in Defendant-Petitioner’s Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Dkt. 3. The Court has
18 considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion, and the remaining file.
19

On June 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate and/or

20 correct his sentence based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Dkt. 1 in Peck v.
21 U.S., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case no. 16-5454 RJB. In
22 Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act
23 was unconstitutionally vague. In this case, Petitioner maintains that the convictions used to
24 calculate his offense level under the sentencing guidelines are not “crimes of violence” under

13-CR-5002 RJB- 1

1 §4B1.2(a)(2) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because Johnson’s vagueness holding applies.
2 Dkt. 1. Petitioner further asserts that Johnson applies retroactively to cases on collateral review
3 in which the court’s Sentencing Guidelines calculation is being challenged. Id.
4

On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in Beckles v.

5 United States, No. 15-8544, 2016 WL 1029080 (June 27, 2016). In the interest of judicial
6 economy, the United States now brings this motion, seeking to stay this case until the U.S.
7 Supreme Court decides Beckles. Dkt. 3. In Beckles, the government contends, the Supreme
8 Court will decide whether Johnson applies to §4B1.2(a)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines, and, if
9 so, whether Johnson applies retroactively to cases on collateral review in which a defendant is
10 seeking to challenge the district court’s Guidelines calculation. Id.
11
12

DISCUSSION
Although a trial court has the inherent authority to control its docket, “habeas

13 proceedings implicate special considerations that place unique limits on a district court's
14 authority to stay a case in the interests of judicial economy.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1120
15 (9th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit has “never authorized, in the interests of judicial economy, an
16 indefinite, potentially lengthy stay in a habeas case.” Id.
17

The government’s motion for a stay (Dkt. 3) should be denied. The government has not

18 shown that a stay, for the sake of judicial economy, is appropriate. See also Knox v. U.S., U.S.
19 District Court for the Western District of Washington case no. 16-5502 BHS, Dkt. 5, and Miller
20 v. U.S., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington case no. 16-5486 RBL, Dkt.
21 4. It is unclear when the Supreme Court will issue a decision in Beckles. Accordingly, judicial
22 economy does not justify what may end up being “an indefinite, potentially lengthy stay” in this
23 habeas case.
24

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY- 2

1

ORDER

2

The United States of America’s Motion to Stay Decision in Defendant-Petitioner’s

3 Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. 3) IS DENIED.
4

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

5 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
6

Dated this 1st day of August, 2016.

A

7
8

ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY- 3