Souliotes v. Grounds
| Decision Date | 12 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | 1:06-cv-00667 AWI MJS HC |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | GEORGE SOULIOTES, Petitioner, v. RANDY GROUNDS, Warden, Respondent. |
IMMEDIATE RELEASE AS OBJECTIONS
TO THE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION
(Docs. 175-77)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and a Recommendation ("F&R") that the petition be granted and that Petitioner be ordered released within thirty days of the adoption of the F&R by the District Court Judge unless Respondent notifies the Court of the state's intent to retry Petitioner. (See ECF No. 174 at 91-93.)
On March 8, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion for immediate release pending final resolution of the petition. (See ECF No. 175.) Respondent filed an opposition and Petitioner filed a reply on March 11, 2013. (See ECF Nos. 176-77.)
As stated in the F&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended conditional relief, i.e., Petitioner's release within thirty days of the grant of the petition, unless Respondentundertakes appropriate action to retry Petitioner. Petitioner, in his motion, opposes the recommended relief. The contentions in Petitioner's current motion could well be characterized, in substance, as constituting an objection, at least in part, to the F&R, rather than as a separate motion.
As Respondent notes in his opposition, the Court has provided short deadlines for filing objections to the F&R. Accordingly, the petition should soon stand ready for adjudication and may be promptly addressed by the District Court Judge. If the petition is adjudicated prior to any finding on Petitioner's current motion, the contentions therein would be rendered moot. If the petition is granted in Petitioner's favor and Petitioner seeks earlier release than recommended in the F&R, many, perhaps most, of the same factual issues and arguments raised in Petitioner's current motion would be relevant to the District Judge's determination.. See O'Brien v. O'Laughlin, 557 U.S. 1301 (2009); Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (2007); Hays v. Farwell, 482 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (D. Nev. 2007); Elliot v. Williams, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123786 (D. Nev., Oct. 25, 2011).
Due to the rapidly changing procedural stance of this case, it is difficult to anticipate whether Petitioner's current contentions would be better addressed by the Magistrate Judge prior to District Judge adjudication or by the District Court Judge after close of the objection period. The Court determines that, on balance, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial