Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06508/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06508-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO MARQUEZ, CV-F-03-6508 OWW WMW HC

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO AMEND

PETITION

Petitioner, 

vs. [Doc. 44 ]

SCOTT P. RAWERS, Warden, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with counsel on a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On September 5, 2007, Petitioner filed a request to amend his petition to include a claim that the

Governor’s reversal of the Parole Board’s grant of parole constituted a violation of the Ex Post Facto

clause. Respondent opposes this motion on the ground that this issue has been decided in Johnson v.

Gomez, 92 F.3d 964 (1996). Petitioner argues in response that the Supreme Court’s decision in Garner

v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (2000) changed the landscape by holding that even if a challenged law is neutral

on its face, it will result in an ex post facto violation if the evidence shows that the implementation of

the provision has created a significant risk of a longer period of incarceration than under the earlier

Case 1:03-cv-06508-OWW -WMW Document 49 Filed 10/30/07 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

27

28

2

provision. Id. at 255. 

Petitioner argues that the issue raised in Johnson v. Gomez must be addressed in light of Garner

v. Jones, and that such a case is now pending before the Ninth Circuit. See Johnson v. Finn, 06-17042.

This court’s review of the district court’s decision in that case reveals that the district court did decide

the issue based on Johnson v. Gomez, and that the application of Garner v. Jones to parole reversals in

California is indeed the issue before the Ninth Circuit in Johnson v. Finn. Accordingly, this court must

find that the applicability of Garner v. Jones is an open question and Petitioner is not precluded from

raising this issue in this court.

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) Petitioner’s motion to amend his petition is GRANTED;

2) The Clerk of the Court is instructed to file attachment number 1 to Petitioner’s Request to

Amend Petition [Doc. 44] as the First Amended Petition;

3) This case will proceed solely on the First Amended Petition;

4) Respondent is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order within which

to file an answer to the First Amended Petition;

5) Petitioner is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the filing of the answer to the First Amended

Petition to file a Traverse.IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06508-OWW -WMW Document 49 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2