Huggins v. Martel

— 1 — — 2 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 3 — NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 4 — — 5 — 6 MICHAEL JAMES HUGGINS, Case No. 06-07254 YGR 7 Petitioner, ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED BRIEFING 8 vs. SCHEDULE 9 RON BROOMFIELD, Warden of San Quentin State Prison — 10 — Respondent. — 11 — Pursuant to the Court’s Order of January 15, 2021, the parties have submitted a proposed — 12 — 13 briefing schedule to address petitioner’s remaining habeas claims following Alameda County 14 Superior Court’s vacatur of his death sentence on December 15, 2020. (ECF Doc. No. 86) — 15 — Petitioner proposes that he file an amended petition by December 10, 2021. He asserts that — 16 — pursuant to Smith v. Williams, 871 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2017), the state court’s intervening judgment — 17 — 18 triggers a renewed limitations period for any federal habeas claims arising from his convictions and 19 sentences, and that the new limitations period expires on December 15, 2021. — 20 — In Smith, the Ninth Circuit held that an amended judgment of conviction is considered a new — 21 — judgment, starting a new one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (d). Id. at 688 ; but see — 22 — Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 , 342 n. 16 (2010) (“several Courts of Appeals have held that a — 23 — 24 petitioner who succeeds on a first habeas application and is resentenced may challenge only the 25 ‘portion of a judgment that arose as a result of a previous successful action.’ Lang v. United States, — 26 — 474 F.3d 348 , 351-352 C.A.6 2007) (citing decisions); see also Walker, supra, at 455; Esposito v. — 27 — United States, 135 F.3d 111, 113-114 (C.A.2 1997)”). — 28 — Respondent disagrees with a December 10, 2021 deadline, contending that Smith does not 2 || apply to petitioner’s case because Smith involved an initial petition rather than an amendment to a 3 || pending petition, as is the case here. Respondent proposes that petitioner be granted 90 days to amend his petition without prejudice to his right to request further extensions of time. — 5 — Because respondent agrees to the grant of an extension of time without prejudice to refiling, — 6 — 7 the Court need not decide whether Alameda County Superior Court’s vacatur of petitioner’s death 8 || sentence triggers a new statute of limitations under Smith. Accordingly, petitioner’s amended 9 petition is due within 90 days of the date of this Order. Petitioner may subsequently submit a — 10 — request for an additional extension of time if necessary. — 11 — 12 IT Is SO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: May 4, 2021 M4 ONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS ‘S 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE A 16 — 17 — — 3 — Zz. — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —