Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00384/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00384-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

STEPHEN DOSSMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

ANTHONY NEWLAND, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 00-384 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

This action was dismissed in 2004 when the court found the habeas petition to be

procedurally barred under California's untimeliness rule. Petitioner successfully appealed that

decision. Relying on King v. LaMarque, 464 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit decided

that, contrary to this court's ruling, petitioner had met his interim burden under Bennett v.

Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003). Dossman v. Newland, 9th Cir. No. 04-15593,

Memorandum Disposition, p. 3. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded "for further

proceedings consistent with this disposition." Memo. Disp., p. 3. "As in King, '[o]n remand, the

government must demonstrate that California's "substantial delay" rule has become sufficiently

clear and consistently applied to justify barring federal review' of Dossman's claim. King, 464

F.3d at 968." Memo. Disp., p. 3. 

Respondent has filed a motion for reconsideration trying to get this court to dismiss the

petition on a ground other than procedural default. Specifically, he asks this court to reconsider

its September 19, 2001 order that denied the motion to dismiss under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and

Case 3:00-cv-00384-SI Document 114 Filed 11/13/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

to now determine that the petition was untimely filed based on "new" case law. Petitioner has

opposed the motion for reconsideration, arguing that this court must decide the issue of

procedural default as directed by the Ninth Circuit's remand. 

 A district court, upon receiving the mandate of an appellate court "cannot vary it or

examine it for any other purpose than execution." In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247,

255 (1895). However, the district court is free to do anything not foreclosed by the mandate or

counter to the “spirit” of the circuit court’s decision. Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 621 (9th

Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2000)).

The Ninth Circuit's decision requires this court to decide the question of the adequacy of

California's timeliness rule for procedural default purposes before doing anything else in this

action. This court cannot consider the separate issue of whether the petition is untimely under

§ 2244(d) until the procedural default issue is decided or respondent permanently abandons the

argument that Dossman's petition is procedurally barred. Deciding whether the petition is

untimely before deciding whether it is procedurally barred would be counter to the spirit of the

Ninth Circuit's decision. For the foregoing reasons, respondent's motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. (Docket # 110.) 

The court now must take up the procedural default issue that was the subject of the

appellate court's decision. In light of the passage of time, the existence of new case law, and the

problems with petitioner's opposition to the motion (i.e., two opposition briefs were filed, one

by appointed counsel and one by petitioner), allowing supplemental briefing will make for an

unnecessarily confused record and analysis. Therefore, the court will require a new motion to

dismiss, a new opposition, and a new reply – without incorporation by reference of existing

briefs.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:00-cv-00384-SI Document 114 Filed 11/13/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The court now sets the following briefing schedule for a motion to dismiss based on

procedural default:

1. Respondent must file and serve his motion to dismiss (or notice of

abandonment of the procedural default defense) no later than December 21, 2007.

2. Petitioner must file and serve his opposition to the motion to dismiss no

later than January 25, 2008. 

3. Respondent must file and serve his reply brief (if any) no later than

February 15, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November ___, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:00-cv-00384-SI Document 114 Filed 11/13/07 Page 3 of 3