Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706-28/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)

---

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

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID J. CARPENTER,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden of California State 

Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent.

Case No. 00-cv-03706-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 195

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Before the Court is respondent's motion, filed October 11, 2016, pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7–9, for reconsideration of the Court's order of December 11, 2015

("December 11 Order"), by which the Court vacated its prior order of May 8, 2015 ("May 8 

Order"), wherein the Court had found various claims were procedurally defaulted based 

on the procedural bar announced in In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756 (1953). Both parties 

agree that Johnson v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 1802, 1805 (2016) (per curiam), compels the Court 

to reconsider its December 11 Order. 

In its December 11 Order, the Court, relying on Lee v. Jacquez, 788 F.3d 1124, 

1133–34 (9th Cir. 2015), held California's Dixon bar was not adequate to foreclose 

federal review of the above-referenced claims. (See ECF Dkt. No. 184 at 1–2.) 

Following entry of that order, however, the Supreme Court reversed Lee v. Jacquez and 

concluded the Dixon bar satisfies the criteria that a state rule must be "firmly established 

and regularly followed," and thus qualifies as an adequate procedural ground capable of 

barring federal habeas review. Johnson, 136 S.Ct. at 1805 (quoting Walker v. Martin, 

562 U.S. 307, 316 (2011)).

Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court VACATES the December 11 Order 

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 199 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in its entirety and REINSTATES the previously vacated portions of the May 8 Order. 

As noted in the May 8 Order, the Court defers ruling on whether petitioner has 

established exceptions to default and will consider at a later date issues of cause, 

prejudice, and miscarriage of justice with respect to any claims that at such time appear 

to have merit. (See ECF Dkt. No. 175 at 8.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 199 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 2