Carpenter v. Brown, et al

Filing 200

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 12/1/16. (mmcalc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID J. CARPENTER, Petitioner, 8 v. 9 10 RON DAVIS, Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 00-cv-03706-MMC Respondent. AMENDED ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION1 Re: Dkt. No. 196 DEATH PENALTY CASE 12 13 Before the Court is respondent's motion, filed October 11, 2016, pursuant to Civil 14 Local Rule 7–9, for reconsideration of the Court's order of December 11, 2015 15 ("December 11 Order"), by which the Court vacated its prior order of May 8, 2015 ("May 8 16 Order"), wherein the Court had found various claims were procedurally defaulted based 17 on the procedural bar announced in In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756 (1953). Both parties 18 agree that Johnson v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 1802, 1805 (2016) (per curiam), compels the Court 19 to reconsider its December 11 Order. 20 In its December 11 Order, the Court, relying on Lee v. Jacquez, 788 F.3d 1124, 21 1133–34 (9th Cir. 2015), held California's Dixon bar was not adequate to foreclose 22 federal review of the above-referenced claims. (See ECF Dkt. No. 184 at 1–2.) 23 Following entry of that order, however, the Supreme Court reversed Lee v. Jacquez and 24 concluded the Dixon bar satisfies the criteria that a state rule must be "firmly established 25 and regularly followed," and thus qualifies as an adequate procedural ground capable of 26 barring federal habeas review. Johnson, 136 S.Ct. at 1805 (quoting Walker v. Martin, 27 1 28 The sole amendment is to correct the docket number in the caption. 1 2 3 4 562 U.S. 307, 316 (2011)). Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court VACATES the December 11 Order in its entirety and REINSTATES the previously vacated portions of the May 8 Order. As noted in the May 8 Order, the Court defers ruling on whether petitioner has 5 established exceptions to default and will consider at a later date issues of cause, 6 prejudice, and miscarriage of justice with respect to any claims that at such time appear 7 to have merit. (See ECF Dkt. No. 175 at 8.) 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: December 1, 2016 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 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?