Daranda v. Colbert

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 14, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00219
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ben Daranda, No. CV-22-00219-TUC-CKJ (DTF)

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 D. Colbert,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Respondent's Motion to Stay (Doc. 20). The Motion is 16 fully briefed. (Docs. 22, 23.) This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate 17 Judge. (Doc. 5 at 3.) This motion is not tantamount to a dispositive motion, such an order 18 is appropriate—instead of a report and recommendation. Cf. Mitchell v. Valenzuela, 791 19 F.3d 1166, 1167, 1169-74 (9th Cir. 2015) (referred magistrate judge was without authority 20 to determine motion to stay when issue is dispositive and must submit report and 21 recommendation). As more fully set forth below, the Motion to Stay (Doc. 20) shall be 22 denied. 23 BACKGROUND 24 On May 9, 2022, Petitioner filed the present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 25 Under 28 U.S.C. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner asserted "that he is actually innocent of the sentencing 26 enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(e) because his prior state conviction is not a 27 categorical match to any federal offense enumerated in § 3559(e), and he has not had an 28 unobstructed procedural shot at presenting this claim." (Doc. 5 at 2.) Further, Petitioner 1 claims "the Ninth Circuit’s recent unpublished decision on Courtright v. Von Blanckensee, 2 No. 20-15473, 2022 WL 522106 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2022), supports his contention that this 3 Court has jurisdiction to hear his claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241." Id. Although such a 4 claim is usually presented under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Petitioner is presenting this claim under 5 the "escape hatch" or "savings clause," which is available when the remedy under § 2255 6 is inadequate or ineffective. See § 2255(e). 7 The District Judge screened the Petition and ordered Respondent to file an answer. 8 (Doc. 5.) On July 25, 2022, the Court appointed an attorney for Petitioner. (Doc. 16.) On 9 August 4, 2022, Respondent filed a Motion to Stay. (Doc. 20.) Respondent asks the Court 10 to stay this matter pending the Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. Hendrix. Id. at 1. 11 Respondent argues that the decision may make the Petition unviable. Id. at 4. Thus, the 12 Respondent argues that a stay would promote efficiency. Id. 13 Petitioner opposes a stay. (Doc. 22.) He argues that a stay could result in 14 unwarranted incarceration. Id. at 7. On August 11, 2022, Respondent filed his answer to 15 the petition. (Doc. 21.) Respondent argued that under the current Ninth Circuit standard, 16 the Petition should be dismissed. Id. at 10. On September 12, 2022, Petitioner filed his 17 reply to the Petition. (Doc. 24.) 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 When determining whether a stay is appropriate, courts must weigh the competing 20 interests, such as damage of a stay, hardship or inequity caused by going forward, and 21 efficiency of the court. McPeters v. United States, 220 F.Supp.3d 1024, 1026-27 (C.D. Cal. 22 2016). The longer the stay, the more justification is necessary to support it. Id. at 1027. The 23 traditional test for determining if a stay is appropriate is "(1) whether the stay applicant has 24 made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant 25 will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially 26 injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." 27 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 28 (1987)). The traditional stay test is appropriate in habeas matters. Hilton, 481 U.S. at 1 775-77. The burden is on the party requesting a stay. Nken, 556 U.S. at 433-34. 2 ANALYSIS 3 Respondent does not evaluate the traditional stay factors. (Doc. 20.) Instead, 4 Respondent relies primarily on efficiency of the Court. Id. at 4. Further, Respondent argues 5 Petitioner would not be subject to unwarranted incarceration because the statutory range is 6 fifteen to thirty years and he is unlikely to receive leniency. Id. at 4-5. Overall, this 7 argument is unconvincing. First, this matter has already been fully briefed. (Docs. 21, 24.) 8 According to Respondent's Answer, Petitioner cannot succeed under the current Ninth 9 Circuit standard. (Doc. 21 at 10-18.) Thus, it would be unnecessary to wait an 10 indeterminate amount of time before resolving this issue. Further, Respondent is not 11 without recourse if the outcome is unsatisfactory. 12 Respondent has not put forth that he is likely to succeed on the merits in either 13 matter. (Doc. 20.) Petitioner compellingly argued that Respondent's hope in Jones is a 14 minority position, even rejected by the Department of Justice in Jones. (Doc. 22 at 3, 5-6.) 15 This factor does not support a stay. 16 Respondent argues that a stay would not prejudice Petitioner. (Doc. 20 at 4-5.) 17 Petitioner reasons he would likely be subject to unwarranted incarceration because of his 18 good-time credit, a resentencing, and the practice of placing persons in residential re-entry 19 centers up to a year before release. (Doc. 22 at 8.) Moreover, Petitioner asserts he 20 previously did not receive a meaningful opportunity to object to the presentencing report, 21 which may alter his sentencing guidelines. Id. Respondent did not address any of these 22 arguments. (Doc. 23.) Thus, Respondent has not shown that this factor points to a stay. 23 Respondent did not address the third and fourth prong of the traditional stay test, 24 other than judicial efficiency. (Doc. 20.) The Court is unpersuaded by Respondent's 25 argument that a stay would result in added efficiency. First, Respondent has already 26 answered, and Petitioner has already replied. (Docs. 21, 24.) Second, the case may be 27 decided on another issue, according to Respondent the current standard does not provide 28 relief to Petitioner. (Doc. 21 at 10-18.) 1 Thus, the Motion to Stay shall be denied. 2 CONCLUSION 3 For the foregoing reasons, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Stay (Doc. 20) is denied. 5 Dated this 14th day of September, 2022. 6 7 8 9 10 United States Magistrate Juda 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-