Collins v. United States of America
Filing
182
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER as to Warren Collins denying the USA's 178 MOTION to Withdraw Reference to Magistrate Judge and 178 MOTION to Stay Case. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 10/26/2016. (cc: counsel of record) (arb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
WARREN COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-05807
(Criminal No. 1:02-00102-01)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the motion of the United States
to withdraw referral of the case to a magistrate judge and to stay
this case.
(ECF No. 178).
Collins has filed a response to the
government’s motion, indicating that he opposes a stay of this
case.
(ECF No. 181).
Collins has filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct
his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, relying on the holding
of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), wherein the
Court held unconstitutionally vague the residual clause of the
Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii)
(defining “violent felony” to include an offense that “otherwise
involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of
physical injury to another”).
The ACCA residual clause
invalidated in Johnson is identical to the residual clause of the
definition of “crime of violence” in the career offender
guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2).
Collins was sentenced as a
career offender under the sentencing guidelines and he contends
that the Johnson holding should be applied to the career offender
guideline.
On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in
Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, to address three questions:
(1) whether Johnson applies retroactively to collateral cases
challenging federal sentences enhanced under the residual clause
in United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2(a)(2); (2) whether
Johnson's constitutional holding applies to the residual clause in
U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), thereby rendering challenges to sentences
enhanced under it cognizable on collateral review; and (3) whether
mere possession of a sawed-off shotgun, an offense listed as a
“crime of violence” only in commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2,
remains a “crime of violence” after Johnson.
The government seeks a stay of Collins’ § 2255 motion on
the ground that Beckles will likely decide the issues raised
herein.
Collins opposes a stay and contends that his motion
should be decided by this court as quickly as possible because, if
his motion is granted, he will be eligible for immediate release.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes
on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.”
U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
Landis v. North American Co., 299
In exercising discretion to stay a case, a
2
court “must weigh competing interests.”
Id. at 255; see also
Central W. Va. Reg'l Airport Auth., Inc. v. Triad Eng'g, No.
2:15-cv-11818, 2015 WL 6758233 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 5, 2015)
(Copenhaver, J.).
“The party seeking a stay must justify it by
clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to
the party against whom it is operative.”
Williford v. Armstrong
World Indus., Inc., 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983); cf. Yong v.
I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2000) (“habeas
proceedings implicate special considerations that place unique
limits on a district court's authority to stay a case in the
interests of judicial economy”).
Accordingly, this court should weigh the interests of
judicial economy in granting a stay versus the potential prejudice
to Collins.
Collins is currently serving a 216 month term of
imprisonment imposed by this court.
The BOP’s Inmate Locator
indicates that Collins’ release date without relief under § 2255
is February 16, 2018.
The court’s review of the record confirms
that Collins’ guideline range would have been lower had the career
offender enhancement not been applied and agrees with Collins that
if his challenge is successful he would potentially be eligible
for immediate release.
Therefore, he will be prejudiced by a
short stay pending a decision in Beckles, which is expected by
mid-June 2017.
See, e.g., United States v. Beane, Case No. 08-cr-
00260-PJH-1, 2016 WL 4045392, *2 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2016)
3
(“[S]taying these proceedings pending a decision by the Supreme
Court on this threshold question could result in prejudicial delay
to defendant, who seeks a reduced term of imprisonment that, if
granted and subject to resentencing, could be exceeded by time
served.
Under these circumstances, considerations of judicial
economy are outweighed by the potential prejudice to defendant,
and a stay is not warranted.”).
Accordingly, given the prejudice to Collins versus the
benefits of staying this matter, the motion to stay is DENIED.
The motion to withdraw the reference to the magistrate judge is
likewise DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of October, 2016.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
4
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?