Williams v. Pliler, et al

Filing 166

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/24/2015 DENYING 164 Request to Enforce Court Order. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD ALEX WILLIAMS,

12
13
14

No. 2:03-cv-0721-KJM-AC

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

CHERYL PLILER, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
17
This matter is before the court on petitioner Richard Alex Williams’s request for

18
19

enforcement of this court’s previous order. For the following reasons, the court DENIES the

20

request.
On June 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting Williams’s petition for writ of

21
22

habeas corpus. ECF No. 114. On July 21, 2014, the respondent filed a notice of appeal and

23

motion for a stay pending appeal. ECF No. 116. On August 28, 2014, the court issued an order

24

granting the motion for a stay in part. ECF No. 133. That order provided, in relevant part,

25

Retrial of petitioner is stayed during the pendency of respondent’s
appeal from the judgment entered in this action. If the appeal is
unsuccessful, the State of California shall have thirty (30) days
from the date the appellate decision is final to institute trial
proceedings in State court.

26
27
28

ECF No. 132.
1

1

The Ninth Circuit affirmed this court’s decision to grant the petition for a writ of

2

habeas corpus. ECF No. 159. On August 21, 2015, the circuit court’s mandate issued, and its

3

judgment took effect and became final. ECF No. 160; see Fed. R. App. P. 41(c). The date “thirty

4

(30) days from the date the appellate decision is final” was therefore September 21, 2015. See

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1).

6

On September 16, 2015, the Sacramento County Superior Court set petitioner’s

7

case for trial on September 21, 2015. Req. Enf. Ex. C, at 2, ECF No. 164. On September 21,

8

2015, the Superior Court received briefing from petitioner and respondent on the effect of this

9

court’s August 28, 2014 order, see id. Exs. A, B, and thereafter issued an order (1) finding the

10

state had until October 20, 2015, to bring petitioner to trial, and (2) continuing the matter for a

11

pretrial conference to September 23, 2015, see generally id. Ex. C.

12

Petitioner argues the state has not complied with this court’s August 28, 2014

13

order. He argues a trial has not “commenced” until “the first witness is sworn or the first exhibit

14

is admitted into evidence.” Not. Anticipated Req. 2, ECF No. 161 (quoting Cal. Evid. Code

15

§ 12(b)(1)). The court disagrees. The August 28, 2014 order required “trial proceedings” be

16

instituted within thirty days, not “trial.”

17

The request is DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: September 24, 2015.

20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2