Travis S. Sulton v. B. M. Trate

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00709
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TRAVIS S. SULTON, No. 1:23-cv-00709-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO STAY 13 v. (Doc. 9) 14 B. M. TRATE, 30-Day Deadline 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Travis S. Sulton (“Petitioner”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner 19 filed the instant habeas petition on May 8, 2023, while in custody of the Bureau of Prisons at the 20 United States Penitentiary, Atwater. (Doc. 1). Petitioner argues he was denied approximately 21 270 days of earned time credit that should have been applied to shorten his period of supervised 22 release. (See generally Doc. 1). 23 After review of the petition and finding it does not plainly appear that Petitioner is not 24 entitled to relief, on August 20, 2025, the Court ordered Respondent to respond to the petition 25 within 60 days. (Doc. 5). 26 On the deadline to file a response (October 20, 2025), Respondent instead filed a motion 27 to stay. (Doc. 9). Respondent argues a stay is warranted because appropriations to the 28 Department of Justice [“DOJ”] (by whom counsel for Respondent and relevant employees of the 1 U.S. Bureau of Prisons [“BOP”] are employed) lapsed upon expiration of the relevant 2 appropriations act on September 30, 2025. Id. at 1. As such, Respondent explains that neither 3 DOJ nor BOP counsel or staff are permitted to work until Congress has restored appropriations. 4 Id. at 1-2. Respondent further asserts that, because BOP staff are unavailable to assist, counsel 5 for Respondent “cannot effectively respond to Petitioner’s arguments.” Id. at 2. 6 Respondent asserts that “counsel for Petitioner does not oppose Respondent’s motion to 7 stay briefing.” Id. at 2. 8 I. Standard of Law 9 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 10 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 11 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Lockyer v. Mirant 12 Corp, 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). “[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the . . . stay 13 will work damage to someone else, the party seeking the stay must make out a clear case of 14 hardship or inequity.” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112; United States v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, 15 Inc., 381 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1250 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2019). 16 In considering whether to grant a stay, this Court must weigh several factors, including 17 “[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or 18 inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of 19 justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 20 which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 21 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). In granting a stay, a court must weigh “the length of 22 the stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 23 (9th Cir. 2000). “If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, [courts] require a greater 24 showing to justify it.” Id. 25 II. Discussion 26 In the pending motion, Respondent fails to weigh or even acknowledge the CMAX factors. 27 Further, Respondent falsely asserts that “counsel for Petitioner does not oppose Respondent’s 28 motion to stay briefing” (Doc. 9 at 2), which cannot be true given that Petitioner is not 1 | represented by counsel. While the Court acknowledges its discretion to temporarily stay 2 | proceedings under the circumstances described by Respondent in the motion, the Court does not 3 | find that the balance of CMAX factors favors staying proceedings. The Court, instead, will 4 | continue the deadline for Respondent’s filing of a response by 30 days. 5 Counsel for Respondent is admonished that the Court disfavors motions seeking 6 | extensions of time filed on the deadline sought to be extended. See Local Rule 144(d) (“Counsel 7 | shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an 8 | action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved 9 | extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon 10 | with disfavor.”). 11 Any failure by counsel for Respondent to comply with the Local Rules and any further 12 | false statements made by counsel for Respondent in the pleadings may result in the imposition of 13 || sanctions. 14 Conclusion and Order 15 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 16 1. Respondent’s motion to stay (Doc. 9) is DENIED. 17 2 The deadline by which Respondent shall file a response to the petition, including 18 any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the resolution of the issues 19 presented in the petition, is continued by 30 days, through and including 20 November 19, 2025. 21 3. Petitioner’s traverse to any Answer or Opposition to any motion to dismiss filed 22 by Respondent is due on or before 30 days from the date of Respondent’s filing. 23 | IT IS SOORDERED. ** | Dated: _ October 22, 2025 | Wr bo 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28