Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20810/USCOURTS-cand-5_01-cv-20810-1/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

Order Granting Extension of Time to Respondent to Retry Petitioner

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.01\Arnold810misc 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRADY ARNOLD, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 01-20810 JF (PR)

ORDER GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPONDENT TO RETRY

PETITIONER 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in the Alameda Superior

Court for attempted robbery while armed with a firearm (Cal. Penal Code §§ 211, 664,

12022(a)(1)), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Cal. Penal Code §

12021(a)(1)) and shooting at an occupied building (Cal. Penal Code § 246). Petitioner

was sentenced to forty-one years-to-life in state prison. 

On November 4, 2003, the Court denied the instant petition and entered judgment

for Respondent. Petitioner appealed this Court’s denial of the petition. The Court denied

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

**Original filed 8/3/06**

Case 5:01-cv-20810-JF Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Order Granting Extension of Time to Respondent to Retry Petitioner

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.01\Arnold810misc 2

granted a certificate of appealability and reviewed this Court’s denial of the petition. 

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. See Arnold v. Runnels, 421 F.3d 859, 869-870

(9th Cir. 2005). On remand, the Ninth Circuit ordered this Court to issue a conditional

writ of habeas corpus and require that the State of California release Petitioner from

custody in this case, unless the State grants Petitioner a new trial within a reasonable

period of time as determined by this Court. Id. On March 2, 2006, this Court issued an

order conditionally granting the petition. The Court ordered that Petitioner must be

released and his conviction vacated unless the State of California retries Petitioner within

one-hundred and twenty (120) days. A copy of the Court’s order was sent to the parties

of record and sent by certified mail to the Alameda Superior Court. 

On July 13, 2006, the Court ordered Respondent to show cause as to why this

Court should not issue an unconditional order releasing Petitioner. The Court ordered

Respondent to file a response and notify the Court of the current status of the underlying

state criminal proceedings. On July 18, 2006, Petitioner, through his counsel, filed a

response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and a declaration. On July 21, 2006,

Respondent filed a response to the Order to Show Cause. On July 25, 2006, Petitioner

filed a reply to Respondent’s response. 

DISCUSSION

The parties have fully addressed the status of the underlying state proceedings in

the papers submitted as of the date of this order. On June 28, 2006, Petitioner appeared

before the Alameda Superior Court and the prosecution noted that it was initiating

criminal proceedings against Petitioner. Petitioner’s Response, Decl. of Amitai Schwartz,

Exhibit 3 at 1-3. The Alameda County Public Defender asked the superior court to

continue the case for two days to determine whether the office would accept the case. Id.

The superior court agreed, noting that it was ready to set the case for trial on Monday July

3, 2006 and that there were judges available to try Petitioner’s case. Id. at 3. 

\\\

Case 5:01-cv-20810-JF Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Order Granting Extension of Time to Respondent to Retry Petitioner

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.01\Arnold810misc 3

On June 30, 2006, the Alameda Public Defender’s Office accepted Petitioner’s

case and the superior court reiterated that trial proceedings could begin on Monday, July

3, 2006. Pet.’s Response, Decl. Of Amitai Schwartz, Exhibit 4 at 1. The public defender

stated that Petitioner’s counsel could not be ready by that date. Id. at 3-4. The superior

court found that California’s speedy trial statute began to run on that date, and it set

further proceedings on July 6, 2006 and a trial date of August 7, 2006. Id. at 1, 4. On

July 6, 2006, Petitioner’s counsel requested a date for a motion to dismiss based upon the

prosecution’s alleged failure to comply with this Court’s order. Pet.’s Response, Decl. Of

Amitai Schwartz, Exhibit 5 at 2. The superior court set a motion hearing date for July 21,

2006, and noted the trial date was still on calendar for August 7, 2006. Id. at 2. In his

Response to the Order to Show Cause, Respondent notes that the prosecution informed

Respondent that Petitioner’s counsel intends to continue the motion date for two weeks. 

See Resp’t. Response at 3, n.4. 

Habeas corpus is an equitable remedy, Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 319 (1995)

and courts have “broad discretion in conditioning a judgment granting habeas relief.” 

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987). “Indeed, ‘federal courts may delay the

release of a successful habeas petitioner in order to provide the State an opportunity to

correct the constitutional violation found by the court.’” Gilmore v. Bertrand, 301 F.3d

581, 583 (7th Cir. 2002) citing to Hilton, 481 U.S. at 775.

Based upon the briefing, the Court concludes that Respondent has shown good

cause for an extension of time beyond the Court’s original one-hundred and twenty (120)

day deadline for retrying Petitioner. Here, the state criminal proceedings were initiated

against Petitioner well before the deadline. Petitioner’s criminal proceeding is now

subject to California’s speedy trial statute pursuant to Cal. Penal Code §1382(a)(2). As

the superior court noted, Petitioner’s right to effective representation of defense counsel

does not override this Court’s order. Pet.’s Response, Decl. Of Amitai Schwartz, Exh. 4

at 4. This additional time period within which to retry Petitioner conforms with the Ninth

Circuit’s order on remand to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus and require that the

Case 5:01-cv-20810-JF Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Order Granting Extension of Time to Respondent to Retry Petitioner

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.01\Arnold810misc 4

State of California release Petitioner from custody in this case, unless it grants Petitioner

a new trial within a reasonable period of time as determined by this Court. Arnold v.

Runnels, 421 F.3d at 869-870 (emphasis added). See also Gilmore, 301 F.3d at 583 

(district court had authority to grant the state an extension of time to comply with

conditional writ); Moore v. Zant, 972 F. 2nd 318, 319, 320-21 (11th Cir. 1992) (district

court did not err in granting state additional time to resentence petitioner after state failed

to act within original 180 day time period). Accordingly, the Court grants Respondent an

extension of time to retry Petitioner within a reasonable period of time, subject to

California’s speedy trial act, and providing that petitioner’s choice to waive time, if

necessary for preparation of the defense, shall not affect the reasonableness of the time

period. 

DISPOSITION 

For the reasons stated above, Petitioner must be released and his conviction

VACATED unless the State of California retries Petitioner within a reasonable time

period. The underlying trial proceedings shall commence within sixty days of the date of

this order, subject to the conditions set forth above. The Clerk of Court shall send a copy

of this order to the Alameda Superior Court via certified mail. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _________________ ______________________ JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

8/3/06 /S/

Case 5:01-cv-20810-JF Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Order Granting Extension of Time to Respondent to Retry Petitioner

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.01\Arnold810misc 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Amitai Schwartz, Esq.

2000 Powell Street

Suite 1286 

Emeryville, CA 94608

Peggy S. Ruffra

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Ave

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Clerk, Alameda County Superior Court

Dept. 11

Rene C. Davidson County Courthouse

1225 Fallon Street

Oakland, CA 94612

Case 5:01-cv-20810-JF Document 66 Filed 08/03/06 Page 5 of 5