Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00721/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00721-25/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)

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD ALEX WILLIAMS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CHERYL PLILER, Warden, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:03-cv-0721-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on petitioner Richard Alex Williams’s request for 

enforcement of this court’s previous order. For the following reasons, the court DENIES the 

request. 

On June 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting Williams’s petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. ECF No. 114. On July 21, 2014, the respondent filed a notice of appeal and 

motion for a stay pending appeal. ECF No. 116. On August 28, 2014, the court issued an order 

granting the motion for a stay in part. ECF No. 133. That order provided, in relevant part, 

Retrial of petitioner is stayed during the pendency of respondent’s 

appeal from the judgment entered in this action. If the appeal is 

unsuccessful, the State of California shall have thirty (30) days 

from the date the appellate decision is final to institute trial 

proceedings in State court. 

ECF No. 132. 

Case 2:03-cv-00721-KJM-AC Document 166 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

The Ninth Circuit affirmed this court’s decision to grant the petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus. ECF No. 159. On August 21, 2015, the circuit court’s mandate issued, and its 

judgment took effect and became final. ECF No. 160; see Fed. R. App. P. 41(c). The date “thirty 

(30) days from the date the appellate decision is final” was therefore September 21, 2015. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). 

On September 16, 2015, the Sacramento County Superior Court set petitioner’s 

case for trial on September 21, 2015. Req. Enf. Ex. C, at 2, ECF No. 164. On September 21, 

2015, the Superior Court received briefing from petitioner and respondent on the effect of this 

court’s August 28, 2014 order, see id. Exs. A, B, and thereafter issued an order (1) finding the 

state had until October 20, 2015, to bring petitioner to trial, and (2) continuing the matter for a 

pretrial conference to September 23, 2015, see generally id. Ex. C. 

Petitioner argues the state has not complied with this court’s August 28, 2014 

order. He argues a trial has not “commenced” until “the first witness is sworn or the first exhibit 

is admitted into evidence.” Not. Anticipated Req. 2, ECF No. 161 (quoting Cal. Evid. Code 

§ 12(b)(1)). The court disagrees. The August 28, 2014 order required “trial proceedings” be 

instituted within thirty days, not “trial.” 

The request is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 24, 2015. 

Case 2:03-cv-00721-KJM-AC Document 166 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 2