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)

Download PDF
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

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?