Huggins v. Martel

Filing 87

ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/4/2021. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2021)

Download PDF
Case 4:06-cv-07254-YGR Document 87 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 MICHAEL JAMES HUGGINS, 7 8 9 10 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 12 Case No. 06-07254 YGR Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE vs. RON BROOMFIELD, Warden of San Quentin State Prison Respondent. Pursuant to the Court’s Order of January 15, 2021, the parties have submitted a proposed 13 briefing schedule to address petitioner’s remaining habeas claims following Alameda County 14 Superior Court’s vacatur of his death sentence on December 15, 2020. (ECF Doc. No. 86) 15 Petitioner proposes that he file an amended petition by December 10, 2021. He asserts that 16 17 pursuant to Smith v. Williams, 871 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2017), the state court’s intervening judgment 18 triggers a renewed limitations period for any federal habeas claims arising from his convictions and 19 sentences, and that the new limitations period expires on December 15, 2021. 20 In Smith, the Ninth Circuit held that an amended judgment of conviction is considered a new 21 judgment, starting a new one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Id. at 688; but see 22 23 Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 342 n. 16 (2010) (“several Courts of Appeals have held that a 24 petitioner who succeeds on a first habeas application and is resentenced may challenge only the 25 ‘portion of a judgment that arose as a result of a previous successful action.’ Lang v. United States, 26 474 F.3d 348, 351-352 C.A.6 2007) (citing decisions); see also Walker, supra, at 455; Esposito v. 27 28 United States, 135 F.3d 111, 113-114 (C.A.2 1997)”). Case 4:06-cv-07254-YGR Document 87 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 2 1 Respondent disagrees with a December 10, 2021 deadline, contending that Smith does not 2 apply to petitioner’s case because Smith involved an initial petition rather than an amendment to a 3 pending petition, as is the case here. Respondent proposes that petitioner be granted 90 days to 4 amend his petition without prejudice to his right to request further extensions of time. 5 Because respondent agrees to the grant of an extension of time without prejudice to refiling, 6 7 the Court need not decide whether Alameda County Superior Court’s vacatur of petitioner’s death 8 sentence triggers a new statute of limitations under Smith. Accordingly, petitioner’s amended 9 petition is due within 90 days of the date of this Order. Petitioner may subsequently submit a 10 request for an additional extension of time if necessary. 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 4, 2021 ____________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 16 17 18 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?