Opinion
NO. CIV S-05-2089 KJM EFB
01-26-2012
DUANE HOLLOWAY, Petitioner, v. KEVIN CHAPELLE, Warden of San Quentin State Prison Respondent.
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Public Defender HARRY SIMON, Bar #133112 Assistant Federal Public Defender Attorneys for Petitioner DUANE HOLLOWAY
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424
Federal Public Defender
HARRY SIMON, Bar #133112
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Attorneys for Petitioner
DUANE HOLLOWAY
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER NOVEMBER 3, 2011 ORDER
On January 25, 2012, this Court held a hearing on petitioner Duane Holloway's Motion to Reconsider Court's November 3, 2011 Order (Doc. 77). In its November 3, 2011 Order (Doc. 76), the Court vacated the scheduled hearing on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 56) and directed the parties to file a joint statement setting forth a schedule for further proceedings.
In response to petitioner's motion for reconsideration, this Court clarifies that it does have discretion to rule on the procedural issues raised in Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment before it considers whether petitioner has satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) under Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011). Moreover, for the reasons stated in petitioner's motion for reconsideration, the Court is persuaded that, in the interests of judicial economy, it should resolve the issues raised in Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment before addressing whether petitioner has satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's Motion to Reconsider the court's November 3, 2011 order is granted.
2. The court's November 3, 2011 order is vacated.
3. Upon further consideration, and in light of petitioner's argument that these proceedings may be affected by the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63, and Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-1001, the date set by the undersigned in the January 25, 2012 hearing for argument on Respondent's Summary Judgment Motion is vacated. See Dckt. No. 71 at 1-2; Dckt. No. 77 at 4-5.
4. The parties are ordered to submit revised briefs on containing all relevant authority according to the following schedule: respondent shall file his revised motion for summary judgment or a statement that he does not wish to file a revised motion within 30 days after the United States Supreme Court issues its decision in Martinez; petitioner shall file his revised opposition or a statement that he does not wish to file a revised opposition within 21 days thereafter; and respondent may file a revised reply brief within 7 days thereafter.
____________________________
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE