Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706-23/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 LEAVE TO 

 FILE A MOTION FOR 

 RECONSIDERATION

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), petitioner has moved for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s order of May 8, 2015, by which the Court dismissed various claims

due to procedural default. In support of his motion, petitioner relies on Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2),

which requires the moving party to demonstrate that “a change of law occurring after the time of [the

challenged] order” compels reconsideration of an earlier decision. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(2). 

Petitioner has made the necessary showing under Civil Local Rule 7-9. As petitioner

correctly points out, this Court relied upon Walker v. Martin, 131 S.Ct 1120 (2011) and various

district court cases to support its holding that California’s Dixon bar was adequate to foreclose

federal review of certain claims. More recently, however, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Martin

does not establish the adequacy of Dixon. See Lee v. Jacquez, 2015 WL 3559125 (9th Cir., June 9,

2015). 

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 177 Filed 06/29/15 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

Accordingly, and for good cause shown, petitioner’s motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration is GRANTED. Within thirty days of the date of this order, the parties shall meet and

confer, and set a briefing schedule for any motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2015

 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 177 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2