Wilridge v. Marshall

Filing 38

ORDER RE: RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 34 36 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

QUINN MALCOLM WILRIDGE,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 09-2236 SI

Petitioner,

ORDER RE: RESPONDENT’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
JOHN MARSHALL, warden,
Respondent.
/

14

This case is before the Court pursuant to a limited remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for

15

the Ninth Circuit to consider petitioner’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from this Court’s

16

October 5, 2009, dismissal of his habeas petition as time-barred. On January 23, 2013, the Court issued

17

an order granting an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s 60(b) motion. Respondent has filed a motion

18

for reconsideration of the January 23, 2013 order. Having reviewed that motion, the Court DIRECTS

19

petitioner to file a response, as detailed below.

20

In the January 23, 2013 order, the Court granted an evidentiary hearing “[b]ecause the record

21

was not amply developed, [so] petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing for the limited purpose of

22

reviewing newly available medical and prison records in order to determine whether petitioner is

23

entitled to equitable tolling based on a mental illness, and therefore to 60(b)(6) relief.” Respondent’s

24

motion for reconsideration raises no new legal issues or arguments. Instead, respondent argues that an

25

evidentiary hearing may not be necessary because the parties may be able to review the relevant medical

26

records themselves and submit additional briefing that would enable the Court to resolve the underlying

27

tolling issue. Given the time and expense an evidentiary hearing entails, respondent contends that it

28

would be more prudent to require petitioner to present the entire set of records in his possession so that

1

both parties may review them, before employing experts for that task.

2

Having considered respondent’s position, the Court hereby DIRECTS the parties to meet and

3

confer to consider respondent’s proposal and associated briefing no later than August 1, 2013. If the

4

parties are able to agree on a proposal for additional briefing prior to or in lieu of an evidentiary hearing,

5

the parties shall notify the Court in a joint statement, no later than August 9, 2013. If, however, the

6

parties are unable to agree, the Court DIRECTS petitioner to file a reply to respondent’s motion, no

7

later than August 9, 2013.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

DATED: July 25, 2013

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

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

2