Walker v. Martel

Filing 220

ORDER RE PROCEEDINGS POST-MANDATE. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 4/18/14. (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

MARVIN PETE WALKER,
No. C 94-1997 PJH
Petitioner,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

ORDER RE PROCEEDINGS
POST-MANDATE

v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
California State Prison at San
Quentin
Respondent.
/

13
14

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for murder, assault, robbery and

15

other crimes in August 1980. On March 31, 2011, this court, Judge Saundra Brown

16

Armstrong presiding, granted petitioner a writ of habeas corpus on his claim that he was

17

unconstitutionally shackled during his capital trial. In addition, the court granted petitioner's

18

claim that his trial counsel's failure to object to the shackling was prejudicially deficient

19

performance at both the guilt and penalty phases of petitioner's capital trial. The court also

20

ordered the state to either release or retry petitioner, in compliance with California state law

21

and the United States Constitution.

22

Respondent subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal from the court's order. The

23

Ninth Circuit reversed the court’s grant of the writ of habeas corpus, and remanded the

24

matter to the District Court. Petitioner subsequently appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to

25

the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of

26

certiorari, and the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate to this court on November 19, 2014. On

27

November 21, 2014, this case was reassigned to the undersigned district judge.

28

1

The parties are now ORDERED to commence proceedings in accordance with the

2

Ninth Circuit’s mandate. Claims 2 (other than subsection 2(c)) and 22 were previously

3

dismissed as moot, and thus remain to be resolved on the merits. Claims 16, 19B(e),

4

19B(f), 19B(aa), 19B(cc) and 21 were dismissed as procedurally defaulted. All other claims

5

were addressed on the merits by the Judge Armstrong. See Docket Nos. 189 and 199.

6

Within 60 days of the date of this Order, the parties are ORDERED to meet and

7

confer, and to stipulate to a briefing schedule to address the remaining claims in this case.

8

In the briefs to be filed the parties shall also address the impact of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131

9

S. Ct. 1388, 1398 (2011) on this court’s decision – prior to the issuance of Pinholster –
granting petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing on Claim 2. In Pinholster, the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Supreme Court held that in determining the reasonableness of a state court's ruling under

12

section 2254(d)(1), federal courts are “limited to the record that was before the state court

13

that adjudicated the claim on the merits.” The Court explained that “evidence later

14

introduced in federal court is irrelevant to § 2254(d)(1) review.” Id. at 1400. Accordingly,

15

the court’s decision granting petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing must be

16

reconsidered in light of Pinholster.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: April 18, 2014

__________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2