Free Motion to Stay - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-02869-JF

Document 3

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General JULIE L. GARLAND Senior Assistant Attorney General JENNIFER A. NEILL Supervising Deputy Attorney General AMANDA J. MURRAY, State Bar No. 223829 Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5741 Fax: (415) 703-5843 Email: [email protected]

9 Attorneys for Respondent 10 11 12 13 14 DAVID QUESADA, 15 Petitioner, 16 v. 17 ARTHUR KNOWLES, Acting Warden, 18 Respondent. 19 20 21 22 INTRODUCTION Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, contending that his due process rights Judge: , The Honorable Jeremy Fogel RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE IN HAYWARD OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME; [PROPOSED] ORDERS USDC-ND 08-2869 JF. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

23 were violated by the Governor's 2006 decision finding him unsuitable for parole. The Court 24 ordered a response to the Petition. On May 16, 2008, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review in 25 Hayward v. Marshall, 527 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2008). Oral argument was heard on June 24, 2008. 26 The en banc court in Hayward may decide whether this Court has jurisdiction over this case, and 27 the appropriate standard to be applied if there is jurisdiction. Therefore, Respondent requests a 28 stay of this case pending the issuance of the mandate in Hayward.
Req. for Stay Quesada v. Knowles USDC-ND 08-2869 JF

Case 5:08-cv-02869-JF

Document 3

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 2 of 4

ARGUMENT 2 3 4 5 6 I. THE COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION AND STAY TIIS MATTER PENDING ISSUANCE OF THE MANDATE IN HAYWARD BECAUSE BOTH THE BALANCE OF THE INTERESTS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF JUDICIAL ORDER AND ECONOMY FAVOR GRANTING A STAY. A trial court has discretion to ensure the just and efficient determination of a case by

7 staying it pending the resolution of other proceedings where a stay would be "efficient for [the 8 court's] docket and the fairest course for the parties." Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal.,

9 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). In determining whether to grant a stay, a court should 10 consider the possible damage that may result, the hardship or inequity that a party may suffer, 11 12 13 and the orderly course of justice, in terms of simplifying or complicating the issues, proof, and questions of law, that could result from the issuance of a stay. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 2005). A court should also take into account the existence of similar

14 cases that are pending in the same district court, and the probability that more are likely to be 15 filed. Id. Staying cases that are on the forefront of an issue provides a necessary delay, allowing

16 for resolution of the issues and resulting in uniform treatment of like suits. Id. 17 18 As the resolution of Hayward could significantly impact this case and numerous similar cases and issuing a stay would prevent unfairness and serve the interests of judicial economy, the

19 Court should exercise its discretion and stay this matter pending the issuance of the mandate in 20 Hayward. 21 22 23 24 25 Granting a stay in this case serves the interests of judicial order and economy. On May 16, 2008, the Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Hayward. (Ex. 1.) At issue before the en banc panel in Hayward are two threshold issues which are necessary to the resolution of this A. Moving Forward with This Case Before the Finality of Hayward Does Not Serve the Interest of Judicial Economy.

26 case: 1) whether California has created a federally protected liberty interest in parole for life 27 inmates, and 2) if a liberty interest is created, what process is due under clearly established 28 Supreme Court authority. Resolution of these issues could establish that Petitioner does not have
Req. for Stay Quesada v. Knowles USDC-ND 08-2869 JF

2

Case 5:08-cv-02869-JF

Document 3

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 3 of 4

1

a federally protected liberty interest in parole, potentially allowing the Court to dismiss his

2 claims for lack of jurisdiction without requiring briefing from the parties. Moreover, it would be 3 wasteful to proceed in this case without the Ninth Circuit's holdings in these matters, as the

4 parties would need to brief issues that will be decided en banc and then submit supplemental 5 briefing to apply the law as clarified in the en banc decision. The two rounds of pleadings may 6 unnecessarily complicate the matters raised and would impair the orderly course of justice. 7 Waiting for the resolution of Hayward would thus conserve Court resources, and prevent the 8 .9 Court from having to revisit this matter if Hayward is modified or reversed. A stay would also serve judicial order and economy by maintaining uniform treatment of

10 like suits, as once the law is settled it can be uniformly applied. In many habeas petitions 11 challenging California parole decisions, the Ninth Circuit has sua sponte stayed submission of

12 the cases until the resolution of Hayward. See, e.g., Tolliver v. Carey, no. 07-15347; Boatman v. 13 Brown, no. 05-16199; Smiley v. Hernandez, no. 06-55727; Valdivia v. Brown, no. 08-15650; 14 Johnson v. Newland, no. 04-16712; Varner v. Brown, no. 05-16029; Johnson v. Finn, no. 0615 16 17042; Clark v. Shepherd, no. 06-55065; Cooke v. Solis, no. 06-15444. Granting a stay would therefore conserve judicial resources and serve the Court's interest

17 in orderly managing these proceedings. 18 19 B. A Stay Would Not Unfairly Delay Petitioner in Pursuing His Claims.

A stay of this case at the district level would not unfairly impose any additional or

20 otherwise avoidable hardship on Petitioner. As discussed above, if the parties proceed in this 21 case additional briefing will likely be needed after the decision in Hayward, perhaps delaying

22 final resolution. Also, even if this court decides this case before Hayward, it is likely the losing 23 party will file an appeal, and that appeal may be delayed pending resolution ofHayward. (See

24 Arg. I.A.) 25 26 CONCLUSION When the equities are balanced, the parties' interests and the interests of judicial economy

27 support staying this case pending the final resolution of Hayward. Staying this case until 28 challenges to Hayward are resolved and that decision becomes final promotes the orderly
Req. for Stay Quesada v. Knowles USDC-ND 08-2869 IF

3

Case 5:08-cv-02869-JF

Document 3

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 4 of 4

1

resolution of this matter, and will assist in maintaining uniformity of like suits pending before

2 this Court and similar cases that will be filed in the future. Respondent therefore requests that 3 the Court exercise its discretion to stay this matter pending issuance of the mandate in Hayward.

4 In the alternative and if this request is denied, Respondent respectfully seeks a thirty day 5 extension of time from the date the Court's denial is served on the Attorney General's Office to

6 file the Answer. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20I22338.wpd

Dated: July 30, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General JULIE L. GARLAND Senior Assistant Attorney General JENNIFER A. NEILL Supervisi ^,, ,putysy%orney ^, eneral

A N^ · J. MU D - . uty Attorney Gen Attorneys for Respondent

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SF2008200I29

Req. for Stay 4

Quesada v. Knowles USDC-ND 08-2869 JF

Case 5:08-cv-02869-JF

Document 3-2

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 5:08-cv-02869-JF

Document 3-2

Filed 07/30/2008

Page 2 of 2