Dykes v. Ayers

Filing 38

ORDER 28 29 30 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/14/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
13

Ernest DYKES,

Case Number CV 11-04454 SI

14
15
16
17
18

Petitioner,

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

v.

ORDER

Ron DAVIS,
Warden, San Quentin State Prison,
Respondent.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INTRODUCTION
In light of Jones v. Chappell, 31 F.Supp. 3d 1050 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2014), which declares
California’s death penalty system unconstitutional, petitioner has filed a Motion To Stay Or
Bifurcate Proceedings, a Motion For Leave To File Amendment/Supplement To Petition and a
Motion for Judicial Notice. Respondent opposes petitioner’s motions. For the reasons stated below,
petitioner’s Motion To Stay is granted, and his Motion To File Amendment/Supplement To Petition
and Motion for Judicial Notice are denied without prejudice to refiling after Jones is decided.

1

BACKGROUND

2

On August 2, 1995, petitioner was convicted in Alameda County of first degree murder,

3

attempted murder and robbery, and was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of California

4

affirmed the conviction and sentence on June 15, 2009. People v. Dykes, 46 Cal. 4th 731 (2009).

5

Petitioner filed a state habeas petition on July 6, 2004. The Supreme Court of California denied the

6

petition on August 31, 2011.

7

On December 21, 2012, petitioner filed a federal habeas petition. Petitioner’s petition

8

contains only penalty-phase claims. Claim One of the petition alleges that California’s death penalty

9

scheme is fundamentally flawed in numerous respects.

Within that claim, he alleges that

10

“imposition of the death penalty in California today is a violation of the federal constitution’s

11

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” (ECF Doc. No. 13 at 95) Respondent filed an

12

answer on December 13, 2013.

13

Petitioner now requests that the Court amend his petition to allege specifically such claims

14

as are both factually applicable to him and also underlie the reasoning in Jones, and further take

15

judicial notice of the proceedings in Jones. He also requests the Court to stay proceedings pending

16

a final resolution of Jones, or in the alternative, bifurcate proceedings to allow his proposed

17

amended claim to proceed alone. Respondent opposes petitioner’s request for amendment on the

18

grounds that petitioner’s proposed claim is unexhausted, untimely and barred by Teague v. Lane,

19

489 U.S. 288 (1989). He further argues that because amendment is unwarranted, petitioner’s

20

requests for judicial notice and a stay are moot.

21
22

DISCUSSION

23

In Jones, U.S. District Judge Carney found that inordinate delay in California’s death penalty

24

system violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 31 F.

25

Supp. 3d at 1053. Judge Carney held that in most cases, systemic delay has made execution so

26

unlikely that the death sentence imposed by the jury has been transformed into life in prison, with

27

the remote possibility of parole. Id. As for those few inmates for whom execution does become

28

reality, “they will have languished so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no
retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary.” Id.
2

1
2

The decision whether to grant a stay “pending resolution of independent proceedings which

3

bear upon the case” is within the sound discretion of the district court. Leyva v. Certified Grocers

4

of Cal., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979); see also CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir.

5

1962). When deciding whether to grant such a stay, the district court should consider whether the

6

other proceeding “will be concluded within a reasonable time.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864.

7

Here, although it is not clear when the Ninth Circuit will render a decision in Jones, a

8

briefing schedule has already been set. Appellant’s Reply Brief was filed on April 13, 2015. The

9

case is on track for resolution.

10

Accordingly, the Court grants petitioner’s request for a stay pending the resolution of the

11

Jones appeal. The Court further denies without prejudice petitioner’s requests for amendment and

12

judicial notice.

13
14

CONCLUSION

15

For the above-mentioned reasons, petitioner’s Motion To Stay is GRANTED. His Motion

16

For Leave To File Amendment/Supplement To Petition and a Motion for Judicial Notice are denied

17

without prejudice to refiling once Jones is decided. The parties shall submit a joint case

18

management statement within 30 days of the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of the Jones appeal.

19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
DATED: May 14, 2015

__________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3