Opinion
No. CIV-S-08-1565 JAM KJM P.
April 24, 2009
ORDER
Petitioner, a prisoner, is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner contends that his due process rights were violated when he was found unsuitable for parole in 2006.
Respondent requests a stay pending the issuance of the mandate in Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th Cir. 2008), reh'g en banc granted, 527 F. 3d 797 (9th Cir. May 2008). It appears theen banc decision will provide important guidance with respect to insufficiency of evidence claims brought by those denied parole in California, including petitioner.
A review of the court's docket reveals that it is unlikely the court will render a decision in this case before the en banc decision in Hayward is rendered. The court assumes that if the court were to order the parties to complete briefing concerning the issues raised in petitioner's habeas petition before the decision in Hayward is reached, the court would have to require the parties to re-brief after the decision.
Because the court is not likely to render a decision before theen banc decision in Hayward is filed, a stay of these proceedings is not appropriate. However, given that re-briefing will likely be necessary after the decision issues, the court will grant respondent an extension of time to file his answer. The answer will be due no later than sixty days after the en banc decision issues.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent's request for a stay (#13) is denied; and
2. Respondent's answer to petitioner's July 8, 2008 petition for writ of habeas corpus is due no later than sixty days after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issues its en banc decision inHayward v. Marshall, 06-55392. Petitioner's traverse shall be filed no later than thirty days after service of respondent's answer.