Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02515/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02515-2/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES G. REECE, 

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 13-2515 SI (pr)

ORDER 

Charles G. Reece filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 to challenge a parole denial decision. The court found the petition to state a cognizable

claim that Reece's right to be free from ex post facto laws was violated when the BPH denied

him parole for five years pursuant to California Penal Code § 3041.5(b)(3), as amended by

Marsy's Law/Proposition 9 in 2008. Docket # 9. On May 7, 2015, the court lifted the stay of

this action and set a briefing schedule on the merits of the petition. 

Thereafter, in Nettles v. Grounds, No. 12-16935 (9th Cir. May 28, 2015), the Ninth

Circuit held that "relief is available to a prisoner under the federal habeas statute only if success

on the claim would 'necessarily spell speedier release' from custody, which Skinner[v. Switzer,

562 U.S. 521, 533-34 (2011)] suggested would include termination of custody, acceleration of

the future date of release from custody, or reduction of the level of custody." Nettles, slip op.

at 18. Earlier Ninth Circuit cases that had "indicated that the writ of habeas corpus may extend

to claims that, if successful, would merely be likely to or have the potential to lead to a speedier

release" were "superceded by the Supreme Court's rulings." Id. at 19. There is at least the strong

Case 3:13-cv-02515-SI Document 11 Filed 06/18/15 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

possibility that Nettles requires the dismissal of this action. 

Accordingly, the court vacates the briefing schedule set out in the May 7, 2015 order and

now requires the parties to submit simultaneous briefs discussing only whether Nettles requires

dismissal of this action. No later than July 13, 2015, respondent and petitioner must each submit

a brief no longer than eight pages discussing whether Nettles requires the dismissal of this

action. The clerk will mail to petitioner a copy of the Nettles v. Grounds and Skinner v. Switzer

opinions. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 18, 2015 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02515-SI Document 11 Filed 06/18/15 Page 2 of 2