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)
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?