Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706-19/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.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Acting Warden

of California State Prison at San

Quentin,

Respondent.

 NO. C 00-3706 MMC 

 

 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE

 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this district, respondent has moved for leave to

file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Order of March 3, 2005, denying in part

respondent’s motion to dismiss. In support of the instant motion, respondent cites to Civil

Local Rule 7-9(b)(2), which, as one of the grounds for reconsideration, requires the moving

party to demonstrate “a change of law occurring after the time of [the challenged] order.”

Respondent has made the necessary showing. As respondent correctly points out, this

Court, in its 2005 Order, relied on Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F. 3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003), and

Morales v. Calderon, 85 F. 3d 1387 (9th Cir. 1996), to support its holding that California’s

timeliness bar was not adequate to foreclose federal review of claims found to be untimely in

state court. More recently, however, the United States Supreme Court has held that

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 164 Filed 11/13/13 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

California’s timeliness bar is adequate, and thus may serve to procedurally bar claims in

federal court that were held untimely in state court. See Walker v. Martin, 131 S.Ct. 1120,

1126-1130 (2011). 

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

motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. Within ninety 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: November 13, 2013

 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 164 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 2