(HC) McCoy v. Trate ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD L. MCCOY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00031-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING STAY1 13 v. (Doc. No. 31) 14 B.M. TRATE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Reginald L. McCoy (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner, is proceeding pro se, on 19 his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). On 20 March 8, 2022, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 21 No. 12). On June 8, 2022, the Court ordered Respondent to submit supplemental briefing to 22 address Petitioner’s argument that pursuant to Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016) and 23 Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013), he is actually innocent of his sentence of 24 mandatory life imprisonment because his predicate Florida felony drug convictions are not 25 qualifying predicates under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). In the supplemental briefing, Respondent 26 argues that Petitioner had an “unobstructed procedural shot” to present this claim; thus, Petitioner 27 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 28 § 636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 20). 1 | “fails to satisfy the test to establish EDCA court-of-custody jurisdiction to proceed under § 2241 2 | pursuant to the § 2255 escape hatch.” (Doc. No. 31 at 3). Additionally, Respondent points out 3 | that Petitioner currently has pending a § 3582 motion for compassionate release in his court of 4 | conviction, the Middle District of Florida (““MDFL”), that raises this identical claim. (/d. at 4 5 | (noting the “MDFL court of conviction has compelled full briefing on the matter and will shortly 6 || resolve the matter in accordance with Eleventh Circuit appellate jurisdiction.”)); United States v. 7 Williams et. al., 8:90-cr-00132-CEH-MRM, Crim Doc. Nos. 1208, 1210). Because the issue of 8 | whether Petitioner’s Florida drug convictions qualify as predicate offenses under 21 U.S.C. § 9 | 841(b) is presently before both this Court and the court of conviction, Respondent alternatively 10 | requests that the Court stay this matter pending a decision on the issue in the MDFL. (Doc. No. 11 | 31 at 4). Respondent submits a stay will conserve judicial and government resources, prevent 12 | conflicting rules on overlapping claims and issues, and ensure against resulting collateral case 13 | confusion. (d.). 14 Respondent’s arguments are persuasive, and Petitioner did not oppose the motion to stay 15 | reply to Respondent’s supplemental briefing. (See Doc. No. 32). The Court finds that the 16 | objective of judicial efficiency is served by staying the instant proceeding pending resolution of 17 | Petitioner’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582 motion for compassionate release in his court of conviction. 18 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 19 1. Respondent’s motion for a stay (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED this matter is STAYED 20 pending resolution of Petitioner’s § 3582 motion in the Middle District of Florida. 21 2. Respondent is DIRECTED to submit a status report within sixty (60) days, and every 22 sixty (60) days thereafter, until resolution of the § 3582 motion in the Middle District 23 of Florida. 24 | Dated: _ August 9, 2022 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28