Wilridge v. Marshall

Filing 54

ORDER: (1) GRANTING PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; AND (2) DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/28/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

QUINN MALCOLM WILRIDGE,

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 09-2236 SI

Petitioner,

ORDER:

v.
(1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S
REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY
HEARING; AND

JOHN MARSHALL, warden,
Respondent.

11

/

12

(2) DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Presently before the Court is a motion by petitioner Quinn Malcolm Wilridge requesting that the
Court set an evidentiary hearing. Docket No. 52. Respondent opposes petitioner’s request and, instead,
proposes that the Court set forth a schedule for briefing on whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary.
After reviewing the parties’ arguments and the record in this action, the Court determines that it is
appropriate to schedule an evidentiary hearing at this time.1 See Docket No. 31 at 5-6.

20
1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On February 4, 2013, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 23,
2013 order requiring an evidentiary hearing. Docket No. 34. On February 6, 2013, respondent filed a
motion for leave to file its motion for reconsideration. Docket Nos. 34, 36. Under Civil Local Rule 79(b), a party moving for leave to file a motion for reconsideration must specifically show one of the
following:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists
from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for
which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of
reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law
at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of
such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.
Respondent’s motion for leave does not satisfy any of the above requirements. Accordingly, the Court
DENIES respondent’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

1
2

The Court therefore ORDERS briefing by the parties, incorporating the full medical and prison
records and expert reports, in advance of the evidentiary hearing, as follows:

3

1.

Petitioner’s opening brief on its Rule 60(b) motion for relief is due by May 19, 2014;

4

2.

Respondent opposition brief is due by June 16, 2014;

5

3.

Petitioner’s reply brief is due by June 30, 2014; and

6

4.

An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for July 18, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.2

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

DATED: April 28, 2014

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2

26
27
28

If the parties are able to stipulate that petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the AEDPA
statute of limitations, the Court will vacate the evidentiary hearing and set forth a briefing schedule for
proceeding on the merits of the petition.
2