Arevalo v. Hennessy

Filing 23

ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING 1 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 2/9/2018. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2018)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ERICK AREVALO, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 VICKI HENNESSY, Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.17-cv-06676-HSG ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Re: Dkt. No. 1 12 Petitioner Erick Arevalo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on November 20, 2017. 13 14 Dkt. No. 1. On December 22, 2017, this Court dismissed his petition on abstention grounds. See 15 Dkt. No. 16. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on December 26, 2017. Dkt. No. 18. On February 16 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s order of dismissal and 17 remanded the case with instructions. See Arevalo v. Hennessy, No. 17-17545, slip op. at 10-11 18 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2018). The Ninth Circuit’s mandate also issued on February 9, 2018. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, the Court CONDITIONALLY GRANTS the petition as follows: the writ of 2 habeas corpus shall issue unless the California Superior Court conducts a new, constitutionally 3 compliant bail hearing in the underlying criminal case within 14 days of the date of this order. 4 The Court assumes this bail hearing will comply with the standards set forth in In re Humphrey, 5 No. A152056, 2018 WL 550512 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2018), which the California Court of 6 Appeal decided after this Court issued its dismissal order. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 2/9/2018 9 10 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 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?