Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706-24/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID J. CARPENTER,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Acting Warden of

California State Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent.

NO. C 00-3706 MMC 

 ORDER GRANTING 

 PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

 RECONSIDERATION

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s Order of May 8, 2015 (“May 8 Order”), dismissing various claims due to procedural default. 

In support of his motion, petitioner argues that a subsequent change of law compels the Court to

reconsider portions of its May 8 Order. 

In said order, the Court relied on Walker v. Martin, 131 S.Ct 1120, 1128-31 (2011), as well

as various district court cases, to support its holding that California’s Dixon bar was adequate to

foreclose federal review of certain claims. See In re Dixon, 41 Cal. 2d 756 (1953). More recently,

however, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Martin does not establish the adequacy of the Dixon bar.

See Lee v. Jacquez, 788 F. 3d 1124, 1133-34 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 184 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Respondent challenges the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Lee but implicitly acknowledges, as

he must, that Lee prevents this Court from holding petitioner’s claims are defaulted pursuant to the

Dixon bar. Although the Attorney General may file a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking

review of Lee (Johnson v. Lee, No. 15A484 (U.S. Nov. 5, 2015)), published opinions of the Ninth

Circuit are binding on district courts irrespective of a potential rehearing or review. See, e.g.,

Wedbush et. al., Inc. v. SEC, 714 F. 2d 923, 924 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is

GRANTED. The portion of the Court’s May 8 Order dismissing petitioner’s claims as defaulted

pursuant to the Dixon bar (see Doc. No. 175 at 4-6) is hereby VACATED, and the portion of the

Court’s earlier order addressing the same issue (see Doc. No. 78 at 10-12) is hereby REINSTATED. 

Specifically, Claims 5, 11, and 32 will be decided on the merits. 

The remaining claims subject to the Dixon bar have either been rejected on the merits

(Claims 15C, 27, 45A, 45B, 45F, 45I, 45J and 45M), or have been barred by other independent and

adequate state procedural rules (Claims 15B, 17, 22, 23, and 25). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 184 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 2