Rodriguez v. Warden, C.S.A.T.F.
Filing
96
ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule Following Remand. Motion due by 2/10/2014. Response due by 3/10/2014. Reply due by 3/24/2014. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/13/2014. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
SALVADOR A. RODRIGUEZ,
8
9
Petitioner,
No. C 04-2233 PJH
v.
10
DERRAL ADAMS, Warden,
11
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOLLOWING REMAND
Respondent.
___________________________________/
12
13
Pursuant to the mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanding the petition
14
for writ of habeas corpus to consider (1) whether petitioner Salvador A. Rodriguez can
15
demonstrate cause under Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), in light of Detrich v.
16
Ryan, 2013 WL 4712729 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2013) (en banc), and (2) whether Rodriguez can
17
demonstrate prejudice under Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991), the court issues
18
the following briefing schedule:
19
On the issue whether there is cause to excuse the procedural default of the claim of
20
ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate and present the testimony of
21
Vonree Alberty and Kenneth Jackson, as asserted in the supplemental traverse to the first
22
amended petition, doc. no. 44, Rodriguez shall file an opening brief on his Martinez motion
23
by no later than twenty-eight days from the date of this order. Respondent’s opposition
24
brief is due twenty-eight days after the opening brief is filed. Rodriguez may file a reply
25
fourteen days after the opposition is filed.
26
27
28
To provide guidance on the issues to be addressed in the Martinez motion, the court
directs the parties to the holding of Detrich, where the court of appeals, sitting en banc,
1
read Martinez to establish four requirements to overcome procedural default, as an
2
exception to the cause and prejudice requirements under Coleman:
3
4
5
6
(1) the claim of “ineffective assistance of trial counsel” was a
“substantial” claim; (2) the “cause” consisted of there being “no
counsel” or only “ineffective” counsel during the state collateral
review proceeding; (3) the state collateral review proceeding was the
“initial” review proceeding in respect to the
“ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim”; and (4) state law
requires that an “ineffective assistance of trial counsel [claim] ... be
raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding.”
7
8
Detrich, 2013 WL 4712729 at *5 (quoting Trevino, 133 S.Ct. at 1918). The order of
9
reversal in part and remand establishes, as the law of the case, the last three of the four
10
Martinez requirements: “First, Rodriguez lacked counsel during his state collateral
11
proceeding. [Footnote omitted.] Second, that proceeding likely constituted an ‘initial-
12
review proceeding.’ Martinez, 132 S. Ct. at 1315. Third, California’s ‘state procedural
13
framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it highly unlikely in a typical case
14
that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance
15
of trial counsel on direct appeal.’” Nov. 18, 2013 slip op. at 4-5. Under the terms of the
16
mandate, the only issue for determination here is whether Rodriguez can establish the first
17
Martinez prong and demonstrate cause to excuse the procedural default.
18
Furthermore, with respect to the showing required under Martinez, the court in
19
Detrich held that if a petitioner’s lack of counsel in his state collateral proceeding
20
establishes cause to excuse procedural default under the requirements of Martinez, “[t]here
21
is no need to show ‘prejudice’ resulting from the failure of the pro se prisoner during the
22
state [post-conviction relief] proceeding to raise a claim of trial-counsel IAC, over and
23
above the need to satisfy the first Martinez requirement that the underlying trial-court IAC
24
claim be ‘substantial.’”
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2014
_________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
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?