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
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?