Jennings v. Runnels

Filing 30

ORDER REOPENING CASE AND LIFTING STAY. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/7/07. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2007)

Jennings v. Runnels

Doc. 30

Case 3:01-cv-03751-PJH

Document 30

Filed 11/07/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 vs. D.L. RUNNELS, Warden Respondent. / MATTHEW GEORGE JENNINGS, Petitioner, No. C 01-3751 PJH (PR) ORDER REOPENING CASE AND LIFTING STAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. It is fully briefed and submitted. One of petitioner's claims is that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated when statements to the police by three non-testifying co-defendants were admitted at trial without a prior opportunity for cross-examination. It appeared this issue would be controlled by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004), which the Ninth Circuit had held to apply retroactively to cases on collateral review such as this one, so the court stayed this case to allow petitioner to exhaust the Crawford issue in state court. He has written the court saying that he has completed exhaustion. The letter will be treated as a motion to reopen and lift the stay. The United States Supreme Court has now reversed the Ninth Circuit's holding that Crawford applies retroactively, see Whorton v. Bockting, 127 S. Ct. 1173, 1184 (2007) (applying Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310-316 (1989)), so the question upon which the stay was granted is now moot ­ Crawford does not apply to petitioner's claim. In any event, petitioner also has exhausted. /// ///

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:01-cv-03751-PJH

Document 30

Filed 11/07/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The implied motion to lift the stay and reopen the case is GRANTED. The clerk shall reopen this case. Because Crawford does not apply, no further briefing is necessary; the case will be decided in its proper order without further action by the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 7, 2007. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.01\JENNINGS751.LIFTSTAY.wpd

2