Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID J. CARPENTER,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden of California State 

Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent.

Case No. 00-cv-03706-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 189

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), respondent has moved for leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Order of December 11, 2015. In support of his 

motion, respondent relies on Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), which, inter alia, allows a party to 

demonstrate that “a change of law occurring after the time of [the challenged] order” 

compels reconsideration of an earlier decision. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2).

Respondent has made the necessary showing under Civil Local Rule 7-9. As 

respondent correctly points out, this Court, in the above-referenced Order, relied upon 

Lee v. Jacquez, 788 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2015), to support its holding that California’s 

Dixon bar was not adequate to foreclose federal review of claims found to be 

procedurally defaulted in state court. See In re Dixon, 41 Cal. 2d 756 (1953). More 

recently, however, the United States Supreme Court held that California’s Dixon bar is 

adequate, and thus may serve to procedurally bar claims in federal court that were 

defaulted under Dixon in state court. Johnson v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 1802 (2016) (per 

curiam). 

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, respondent’s motion for leave to file a 

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 190 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Within ninety days of the date of this Order, the 

parties shall meet and confer, and set a briefing schedule for any motion for 

reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 190 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 2