Carpenter v. Brown, et al

Filing 184

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 12/11/15. (mmcalc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 DAVID J. CARPENTER, 12 13 14 15 16 NO. C 00-3706 MMC Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. RON DAVIS, Acting Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, DEATH PENALTY CASE Respondent. 17 18 19 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the 20 Court’s Order of May 8, 2015 (“May 8 Order”), dismissing various claims due to procedural default. 21 In support of his motion, petitioner argues that a subsequent change of law compels the Court to 22 reconsider portions of its May 8 Order. 23 24 25 In said order, the Court relied on Walker v. Martin, 131 S.Ct 1120, 1128-31 (2011), as well as various district court cases, to support its holding that California’s Dixon bar was adequate to 26 foreclose federal review of certain claims. See In re Dixon, 41 Cal. 2d 756 (1953). More recently, 27 however, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Martin does not establish the adequacy of the Dixon bar. 28 See Lee v. Jacquez, 788 F. 3d 1124, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2015). 1 Respondent challenges the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Lee but implicitly acknowledges, as 2 he must, that Lee prevents this Court from holding petitioner’s claims are defaulted pursuant to the 3 Dixon bar. Although the Attorney General may file a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking 4 review of Lee (Johnson v. Lee, No. 15A484 (U.S. Nov. 5, 2015)), published opinions of the Ninth 5 Circuit are binding on district courts irrespective of a potential rehearing or review. See, e.g., 6 7 8 Wedbush et. al., Inc. v. SEC, 714 F. 2d 923, 924 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, and for good cause shown, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is 9 GRANTED. The portion of the Court’s May 8 Order dismissing petitioner’s claims as defaulted 11 Court’s earlier order addressing the same issue (see Doc. No. 78 at 10-12) is hereby REINSTATED. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 pursuant to the Dixon bar (see Doc. No. 175 at 4-6) is hereby VACATED, and the portion of the 12 Specifically, Claims 5, 11, and 32 will be decided on the merits. 13 14 The remaining claims subject to the Dixon bar have either been rejected on the merits (Claims 15C, 27, 45A, 45B, 45F, 45I, 45J and 45M), or have been barred by other independent and 15 adequate state procedural rules (Claims 15B, 17, 22, 23, and 25). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 DATED: December 11, 2015 19 MAXINE M. CHESNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?