Rodrigues v. Calderon

Filing 390

ORDER FOR ORAL ARGUMENT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/25/16. Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2016 02:30 PM in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken.(jebS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2016)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOSE ARNALDO RODRIGUES,

5
6
7
8
9

No. C 96-01831 CW

Petitioner,

ORDER FOR ORAL
ARGUMENT

v.
W.L. MONTGOMERY, Warden,
Respondent.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The Court is tentatively inclined to deny the petition for

12

writ of habeas corpus.

13

argument regarding Petitioner's competence to stand trial (claim

14

one), trial counsel's failure to seek a competency hearing (claim

15

three), trial counsel's allegedly ineffective assistance in

16

failing to investigate and present evidence that Petitioner was

17

incompetent to stand trial (claim nine), appellate counsel's

18

alleged ineffective assistance in failing to raise claim nine

19

(claim forty-four), Juror Langston's alleged bias (claim four) and

20

all related requests for discovery and evidentiary hearings.

21

Thus, the Court orders counsel for both sides to appear for oral

22

argument on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 2:30 PM, or on a later

23

Tuesday convenient for counsel when the Court is available.

24

Petitioner’s presence will not be necessary.

25
26
27
28

However, the Court wishes to hear legal

Counsel shall be prepared to discuss all issues relating to
these claims and the following issues in particular:
1) If the Court were to grant an evidentiary hearing as to the
competency claims, what pre-hearing discovery and

1

examinations would be requested?

2

Petitioner was incompetent at the time of his trial, would it

3

be appropriate for this Court to consider whether he is

4

competent now or could be restored to competency?

5

If it were determined that

2) Are the doctors who examined Petitioner before and during

6

trial available to be deposed and to testify if an

7

evidentiary hearing were held?

8
9

3) As to claim four, if the Court were to conclude that de novo
review is appropriate, would Petitioner be entitled to relief

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

under Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) (en

11

banc) and its progeny?

12
13
14

4) Is Juror Langston available to be deposed and to testify if
an evidentiary hearing were held?
5) Are Petitioner's defense and appellate attorneys available to

15

be deposed and to testify if an evidentiary hearing were

16

held?

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: March 25, 2016
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2