From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. St. James

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 11, 2016
Case No. 08-cr-00304-PJH-1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016)

Summary

denying motion to stay habeas proceedings indefinitely pending Beckles decision, in part because "the Ninth Circuit recently lifted the stays previously entered in Gardner v. United States , No.15–72559 and Jacob v. United States , No. 15–73302 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2016), which the government in support of the ... stay. Under these circumstances, considerations of judicial economy are outweighed by the potential prejudice to the defendant, and a stay is not warranted."

Summary of this case from McPeters v. United States

Opinion

Case No. 08-cr-00304-PJH-1

08-11-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MAURICE JEROME ST. JAMES, Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

Re: Doc. No. 84

The government has filed a motion to stay the motion of defendant Maurice Jerome St. James to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 under the holding of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The government seeks a stay of the § 2255 motion on the ground that the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Beckles v. United States, No. 15-8544, which presents issues raised in defendant's § 2255 motion in light of the holding of Johnson, where 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). The Supreme Court granted certiorari review in Beckles on the questions whether Johnson applies retroactively to collateral cases challenging federal sentences enhanced under the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), and 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.

The government represents that Beckles will likely decide the application of Johnson to the Guidelines and the retroactivity question presented in defendant's § 2255 motion. Doc. no. 84. Defendant promptly filed an opposition to the motion to stay on the ground that judicial efficiency alone is not a valid basis to justify an indefinite and potentially lengthy stay in a habeas case. Doc. no. 85. In support of his opposition to the stay, defendant cites Yong v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2000), where the Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by staying a habeas petition pending resolution of an appeal in a case before the Ninth Circuit presenting similar issues to be decided, Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated by Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In reviewing the stay order, the Ninth Circuit noted that "because the stay terminates upon the 'resolution of the [Ma] appeal,' if the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to review this court's decision in Ma, the stay could remain in effect for a lengthy period of time, perhaps for years if our decision in Ma is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings." Id. at 1119. The court in Yong reasoned that "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," and held that "although considerations of judicial economy are appropriate, they cannot justify the indefinite, and potentially lengthy, stay imposed here." Id. at 1120-21.

Defendant's brief in opposition to the motion to stay does not specifically address how much time he has served in custody or the guideline sentencing range that would be applicable if he is granted relief under Johnson. The court notes that on December 10, 2008, defendant was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and sentenced to 200 months imprisonment. The court further notes that the Bureau of Prisons website (www.bop.gov) indicates that defendant's expected release date is October 26, 2022. Defendant states in his § 2255 motion that when he was sentenced with the career offender enhancement, his guideline range was 262-327 months, based on a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of VI. Doc. no. 82 at 1. He argues that without the career offender enhancement, his guideline range "would have been 130-162 months based on a total offense level of 27 and a criminal history category of IV," id., although at the time of sentencing, he argued that if the career offender guidelines were not applied, he would be subject to an adjusted offense level of 27 and a criminal history category of either IV or V, resulting in a guideline range of either 100-125 or 120-150 months. Doc. no. 38 at 12. He further contends that under the current sentencing guidelines, without the career offender enhancement, his "offense level would be 21, resulting in a guideline range of 77-96 months imprisonment." Doc. no. 82 at 1-2 (footnote omitted). For purposes of the instant motion to stay, the court presumes, without deciding, that defendant refers to the current version of the drug offense guidelines and Drug Quantity Table, as amended by Amendment 782 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual.

The court carefully considers whether a stay pending resolution of Beckles is likely to be resolved without inordinate delay because of the court's duty to adjudicate habeas petitions in a timely manner. Yong, 208 F.3d at 1119-20. Because a decision in Beckles is expected within a year, the government does not seek an indefinite stay. Unlike the appeal at issue in Yong which was subject to further review, the Supreme Court is likely to decide conclusively the question presented in Beckles whether Johnson applies retroactively to collateral challenges to sentence enhancements applied under the residual clause of the guidelines. Staying these proceedings pending a decision by the Supreme Court on this threshold question could, however, result in prejudicial delay to defendant, who seeks relief which, if granted, could result in a reduced term of imprisonment that could be exceeded by time served if the proceedings are stayed until as late as June 2017. Furthermore, the court notes that the Ninth Circuit recently lifted the stays previously entered in Gardner v. United States, No. 15-72559 and Jacob v. United States, No. 15-73302 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2016), which the government cited in support of the instant motion to stay. Doc. no. 86. Under these circumstances, considerations of judicial economy are outweighed by the potential prejudice to defendant, and a stay is not warranted.

Accordingly, the government's motion to stay the § 2255 motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2016

/s/_________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. St. James

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 11, 2016
Case No. 08-cr-00304-PJH-1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016)

denying motion to stay habeas proceedings indefinitely pending Beckles decision, in part because "the Ninth Circuit recently lifted the stays previously entered in Gardner v. United States , No.15–72559 and Jacob v. United States , No. 15–73302 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2016), which the government in support of the ... stay. Under these circumstances, considerations of judicial economy are outweighed by the potential prejudice to the defendant, and a stay is not warranted."

Summary of this case from McPeters v. United States
Case details for

United States v. St. James

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MAURICE JEROME ST. JAMES…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 11, 2016

Citations

Case No. 08-cr-00304-PJH-1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016)

Citing Cases

McPeters v. United States

"The fact that our Court of Appeals views a stay pending Beckles as inappropriate, is itself a good reason…