Mendoza v. de la Cruz
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Nancy Michelle Mendoza moved to stay and abey the federal habeas proceedings pending state court resentencing discussions, a motion to which the Respondent did not oppose. The Court granted the motion, staying the case pending the resolution of the state proceedings and directing the Petitioner to move to lift the stay within 30 days of that resolution.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant Petitioner's Motion for Stay and Abeyance of Proceedings“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No. 3), and STAYS this matter pending resolution of state resentencing review proceedings.” | agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record recited. The court correctly identifies its inherent authority to control its docket and stay proceedings. Given that the motion is unopposed and the Petitioner asserts a valid reason for the stay (potential mootness of habeas issues due to state resentencing), granting the stay is a proper exercise of judicial discretion to promote judicial economy. |
Direct Petitioner to file a motion to lift the stay within 30 days of state resolution“Petitioner is DIRECTED to file, within thirty (30) days of the District Attorney’s Office’s resolution of Petitioner’s resentencing review, a motion requesting that the stay be lifted.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural directive to ensure the case does not remain indefinitely in limbo. It is a reasonable condition attached to the stay to protect the interests of justice and the court's docket. |
Administratively close the case“The Clerk of Court will administratively close this case until further Order of this Court.” | agree with court Administrative closure is the standard procedural mechanism for cases that are stayed or otherwise inactive. It is consistent with the grant of the stay. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites the foundational Supreme Court authority (Landis) for the court's inherent power to stay proceedings. It notes the unopposed nature of the motion and the Petitioner's assertion of potential mootness, which are sufficient grounds for a district court to exercise its discretion to stay a case to promote judicial economy. The order is concise and directly addresses the motion presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NANCY MICHELLE MENDOZA, Case No.: 24-CV-1403 JLS (LR) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 13 v. MOTION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE 14 ANISSA DE LA CRUZ, Warden, 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 3) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Nancy Michelle Mendoza’s (“Petitioner”) 18 Motion for Stay and Abeyance of Proceedings Pending State Court Sentencing Review 19 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 3). Petitioner avers her counsel is engaged in resentencing discussions 20 initiated by the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office and granting a stay will 21 promote judicial economy by avoiding unnecessary litigation in federal court if the state 22 resentencing proceedings result in a favorable outcome for Petitioner. See generally Mot. 23 Respondent Anissa de la Cruz (“Respondent”) filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to 24 Petitioner’s Motion for Stay and Abeyance (“Statement,” ECF No. 5), indicating 25 Respondent does not oppose Petitioner’s request to stay the matter until any possible 26 resentencing issue has been resolved. Statement at 2. 27 Inherent in the Court’s “power to control [its] docket” is the authority to stay a case. 28 HDI Glob. Ins. Co. v. San Fernando Realty, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-06468-SVW-KK, 1 2020 WL 7872202, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2020) (citing Landis v. North Am. Co., 2 || 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). As the Motion is unopposed, and Petitioner asserts the pending 3 resentencing discussions could potentially render some or all the habeas issues moot, the 4 Court finds a stay to allow the state sentencing review to proceed is appropriate. 5 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No. 3), and STAYS 6 ||this matter pending resolution of state resentencing review proceedings. Petitioner is 7 || DIRECTED to file, within thirty (30) days of the District Attorney’s Office’s resolution 8 || of Petitioner’s resentencing review, a motion requesting that the stay be lifted. The Clerk 9 ||of Court will administratively close this case until further Order of this Court. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: September 24, 2024 tt jt Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28