Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-03926/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-03926-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

Case No. C 01 3926 MHP

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(DPSAGOK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Royal Kenneth HAYES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

Robert L. AYERS Jr., Acting Warden of San

Quentin State Prison,

 Respondent.

Case Number C 01 3926 MHP

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Docket No. 37]

In its Order Disposing of Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court found

Respondent to be entitled to summary judgment on the remaining claims in Petitioner’s

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Claims I through IX. Pursuant to the terms of that

Order and Civil Local Rule 7-9, Petitioner now moves for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration regarding Claims IV, V, and VI.

Claims IV and V are a pair of related claims that involve the allegedly false testimony of

a key prosecution witness, Deborah Garcia. In seeking reconsideration, Petitioner contends that

the Court manifestly failed to consider material facts contained in the record when it ruled that

these claims lack merit. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3).

However, the Court did consider all of the facts proffered by Petitioner in connection

with his current Motion, as they were contained in his summary-judgment briefing and the

Case 3:01-cv-03926-MHP Document 38 Filed 09/01/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C 01 3926 MHP

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(DPSAGOK)

record, of which, as noted in the Court’s prior Order, the Court conducted a thorough,

independent review. Moreover, a further examination of the record in light of Petitioner’s

current brief leaves the Court’s earlier conclusions undisturbed. Accordingly, there is no basis

for the Court to reconsider its holdings regarding Claims IV and V.

In Claim VI, Petitioner contends that the use of allegedly unnecessary security

procedures deprived him of a fair trial. In seeking reconsideration regarding this claim,

Petitioner relies on Musladin v. Lamarque, 427 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. granted sub nom.

Carey v. Musladin, 126 S. Ct. 1769 (2006), which was decided just five days before the Court

issued its Order Disposing of Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. In Musladin, the Ninth

Circuit did not purport to change the law; rather, it explicitly applied “clearly established

Supreme Court law,” 427 F.3d at 654, in determining whether “certain practices attendant to the

conduct of a trial can create such an unacceptable risk of impermissible factors coming into play

as to be inherently prejudicial to a criminal defendant,” id. at 656 (internal punctuation omitted). 

Petitioner argues that this standard, as recognized in Musladin, is less onerous than the standard

that was applied to Petitioner’s Claim VI.

However, the Court’s discussion of Claim VI in its Order Disposing of Cross-Motions for

Summary Judgment demonstrates that the security measures taken at Petitioner’s trial were

appropriate and likely created no risk at all of impermissible factors coming into play when

Petitioner’s jury deliberated and returned its verdict. Under any standard, Claim VI lacks merit. 

Musladin thus provides no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s grant of summary judgment to

Respondent on Claim VI.

Accordingly, and good cause therefor appearing, the Court hereby denies Petitioner’s

Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. There being no further claims for the

Court to resolve, the Court will deny Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

If Petitioner wishes to request a certificate of appealability, he shall do so not less than twenty

days after the date that the Court issues the present Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for Leave

to File a Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent shall respond to any such request not less than

twenty days after such request is filed. Petitioner shall reply to any such response not less than

Case 3:01-cv-03926-MHP Document 38 Filed 09/01/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case No. C 01 3926 MHP

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(DPSAGOK)

ten days after such response is filed. The Court will issue an order regarding any request for a

certificate of appealability concurrently with its judgment for Respondent.

It is so ordered.

DATED: September 1, 2006 __________________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:01-cv-03926-MHP Document 38 Filed 09/01/06 Page 3 of 3