Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00698/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00698-4/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)

---

Docket No. 44. 1

Hayward, 603 F.3d at 562. The parties should also consider the effect of the subsequent 2

decisions of the Ninth Circuit applying Hayward in Pearson v. Muntz, 606 F.3d 606 (9th Cir. 2010) (per

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH A. SOMERS,

Petitioner,

vs.

TERESA SCHWARTZ,

Respondent.

No. 2:04-cv-00698-JKS-KJM

ORDER

Petitioner Keith A. Somers, a state prisoner represented by counsel, appealed the

judgment of this Court denying his Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment of this Court, and remanded for

reconsideration in light of the decision in Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (en

banc).

1

The decision in Hayward significantly impacts the central issue in this case. This Court

has determined that supplemental briefing by the parties addressing the impact of Hayward on

this case is necessary. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. On or before September 2, 2010, each party must separately serve and file a brief, not

exceeding 15 pages in length, setting forth the party's position on the impact of Hayward on this

case, in particular that “[t]he prisoner’s aggravated offense does not establish current

dangerousness ‘unless the record also establishes that something in the prisoner's pre- or postincarceration history, or his or her current demeanor and mental state’ supports the inference of

dangerousness.”2

Case 2:04-cv-00698-JKS-KJM Document 45 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 2
curiam), Cooke v. Solis, 606 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2010), and Pirtle v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, ---

F.3d. ---, 2010 WL 2732888 (9th Cir. July 12, 2010).

2

2. Respondent must specifically identify those characteristics, other than the underlying

commitment offense, that support a finding that release of the Petitioner to parole status poses a

current threat to public safety, and point to the specific evidence in the record that supports that

determination.

3. Not later than 14 days after briefs in paragraph 1 are served and filed, each party may

serve and file a reply brief, not to exceed 10 pages in length, addressing those matters addressed

in the other party's opening brief. The reply brief may not simply reiterate or restate arguments

or issues covered in the party's opening brief.

Dated: August 11, 2010

s/ James K. Singleton, Jr.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00698-JKS-KJM Document 45 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 2