Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00974/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-00974-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HUTCHINSON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JIM HAMLET, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-974 JSW (PR)

ORDER CLARIFYING ORDER

GRANTING HABEAS RELIEF 

(Docket No. 104)

Petitioner, formerly a California state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus which was granted on June 22, 2006 (docket no. 77), more than one year ago. 

Petitioner was arrested in March, 1999 on the underlying charges and was sentenced to

thirteen years in state prison on January 24, 2000. Prior to this Court’s order releasing

Petitioner from custody issued on July 26, 2006, Petitioner had already served more than

seven years in custody and accrued more than one year of good conduct credit on this

conviction, which has now been determined by two courts to have been unconstitutional. 

Respondent appealed this Court’s order granting relief on July 21, 2006 and the

Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming this Court’s decision on July 3, 2007. The

mandate issued on July 30, 2007. On August 7, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion

seeking clarification of this Court’s order of relief, which specified that Respondent must

“either retry Petitioner on the charges or release him from custody within sixty days from

the date of this order.” 

The district court has broad discretion in conditioning a judgment granting habeas

relief. See, Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987). Conditional release orders

Case 3:02-cv-00974-JSW Document 105 Filed 08/09/07 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

leave to state court officials the determination whether to release or to retry a prisoner

within a reasonable period of time. See, e.g., Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40, 52 (1992)

(ordering remand to district court to enter conditional writ); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544

U.S. 74, 89 (2005) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (discussing practice of granting conditional

writ). The district court has broad discretion to fashion an order requiring retrial within a

reasonable time. See, e.g., Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3rd. 992, 1018 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 543 U.S. 1034 (2004) (granting “conditional writ of habeas corpus, ordering

Taylor’s release unless the state of California. . .actually commences Taylor’s retrial

within seventy days of issuance of the mandate”); Luna v. Cambra, 311 F.3rd 928 (9th

Cir. 2002) (ordering granting of writ unless retrial commences “within a reasonable time

thereafter to be set by the District Court.”) 

Given the substantial amount of time that has passed since Petitioner was arrested

on the underlying charges and the lengthy period of incarceration he has already served,

the Court hereby clarifies that the order granting relief requires release from the charges

or retrial of Petitioner to actually commence within sixty days of the issuance of the

mandate by the Ninth Circuit. This Court will not revisit the earlier order requiring a

prompt release or retrial, except upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 9, 2007

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-00974-JSW Document 105 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 2