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)

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