Martinez v. Campbell, et al.,

Filing 88

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Arthur L. Alarcon on 2/3/09 ORDERING that Petitioner's Motion for supplemental briefing 87 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The California Supreme Court's order stated "[t]he petition for review is denied without prejudice to any relief to which defendant might be entitled after the United States decides Oregon v. Ice, No. 07-901." People v. Martinez, 2008 Cal. LEXIS 14391, Case No. S167946 (Cal. Dec. 10, 2008). 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KENNETH LEE MARTINEZ, Petitioner, vs. ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, Warden, Respondent. / On January 30, 2009, Petitioner Kenneth Lee Martinez ("Petitioner") filed a "Motion for Supplemental Brief that Addresses the California Supreme Courts December 10, 2008 order in Case Number S167946."1 (Doc. No. 87.) On December 30, 2008, this court granted Petitioner an extension of time to file his traverse--from December 12, 2008 until January 30, 2009. (Doc. No. 84.) The court specifically stated that "No further extensions of time will be granted." Id. On January 29, 2009, Petitioner filed a 158-page Traverse and 90-page "Petition for Writ of Mandate" (Doc. No. 86). Because this voluminous filing was submitted well after the California Supreme Court's ORDER Case No. 2:06-cv-00831 ALA (HC )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

December 10, 2008 order, Petitioner had ample opportunity to include any pertinent arguments therein. He chose not to. Accordingly, while the court will of course consider the effect of Oregon v. Ice, 129 S. Ct. 711 (2009) on this matter, if any, the court DENIES Petitioner's motion for supplemental briefing (Doc. No. 87). ///// DATED: February 3, 2009 /s/ Arthur L. Alarcón UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE Sitting by Designation

2