Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02089/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02089-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUANE HOLLOWAY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-2089 FCD EFB P

vs.

VINCENT CULLEN, Warden of San

Quentin State Prison,

ORDER

Respondent. DEATH PENALTY CASE

 /

On July 13, 2010, the parties filed a Stipulation for Status Conference and Order,

informing the court of the following:

On June 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of

certiorari filed by the California Attorney General’s Office in Walker v. Martin,

___ S.Ct. ___, 2010 WL 621406 (June 21, 2010). The questions presented in the

Martin case are as follows:

Under state law in California, a prisoner may be barred from

collaterally attacking his conviction when the prisoner

“substantially delayed” filing his habeas petition. In federal habeas

corpus proceedings, is such a state law “inadequate” to support a

procedural bar because (1) the federal court believes that the rule is

vague and (2) that state failed to prove that its courts

“consistently” exercised their discretion when applying the rule in

other cases?

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-02089-DJC-JDP Document 62 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

There is a substantial possibility that the outcome of the Martin case could alter 

the framework established by the Ninth Circuit for evaluating the adequacy of

California’s procedural bars under Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3rd 573 (9th Cir. 2003) 

and King v. Lamarque, 464 F.3d 963 (9thCir. 2006).

Dckt. No. 61. The parties stipulated that briefing on respondent’s pending motion for summary

judgment, which is based on procedural defaults, be suspended until further order of the court. 

The court finds that this action should be administratively stayed pending the issuance of a

decision in Martin. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Briefing on the pending motion for summary judgment is stayed pending the issuance

of a decision in Martin; and

2. The parties are directed to file a joint status report within 14 days after a decision in

Martin is rendered. 

DATED: August 2, 2010.

Case 2:05-cv-02089-DJC-JDP Document 62 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2