Martinez v. Cate

Filing 52

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, any party may move to reopen the case for good cause, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 02/14/2019. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL J. MARTINEZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:11-cv-00572-AWI-JDP (HC)

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER REGARDING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

MATTHEW CATE,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner Daniel J. Martinez, a state prisoner represented by counsel, sought a writ of

18

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 27, 2015, the Court denied the petition, adopting

19

findings and recommendations issued by a Magistrate Judge, but the Court also granted a certificate

20

of appealability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of

21

the habeas petition. See ECF No. 48. The Court of Appeals also instructed, “Unless the State of

22

California elects to retry Martinez within a reasonable period of time to be determined by the district

23

court, the district court shall issue the writ granting Martinez’s habeas petition.” Id. at 31. This

24

Court found that a 60-day period was a reasonable time for the State of California to decide whether

25

to retry Petitioner and issued a conditional writ pursuant to the Court of Appeals’ instruction. ECF

26

No. 50. The state has informed this Court that it will retry Petitioner, ECF No. 51, and Petitioner

27

has not informed this Court that his new state-court proceeding is deficient in any way.

28

When a state meets the terms of the habeas court’s conditional writ, the habeas court does
1

1

not retain any further jurisdiction over the matter. See Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482, 490 (1975)

2

(per curiam) (“Neither Rule 60(b), 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, nor the two read together, permit a federal

3

habeas corpus court to maintain a continuing supervision over a retrial conducted pursuant to a

4

conditional writ granted by the habeas court.”). Once the terms of the conditional writ have been

5

satisfied, the appropriate course of action for the district court is to dismiss the case for lack of

6

jurisdiction. See Eddleman v. McKee, 586 F.3d 409, 414 (6th Cir. 2009). If petitioner seeks to

7

challenge a matter pertaining to his new state-court proceeding, he must first exhaust his remedies

8

in state court before seeking relief from this Court. See Pitchess, 421 U.S. at 489.

9

Although any party may move to reopen this case for good cause to challenge the

10

satisfaction of the conditional writ’s terms, this Court is satisfied that the terms of the conditional

11

writ have been satisfied at this time. The Court will therefore dismiss the case and direct the Clerk

12

of Court to close it.

13

Order

14

1. This case is dismissed.

15

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

16

3. Any party may move to reopen the case for good cause.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2019
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2