WEEDEN v. JOHNSON

No. 2:13-cv-02667-JKS.

SARAH WEEDEN, Petitioner, v. DEBORAH K. JOHNSON, Warden, Central California Women's Facility, Respondent.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Sarah Weeden, Petitioner, represented by Charles M. Bonneau, Jr. , Law Office of Charles M. Bonneau, Jr..

Derral Adams, Respondent, represented by Christina Hitomi Simpson , Attorney General's Office of the State of California.


ORDER

[Re: Motion at Docket No. 26]

JAMES K. SINGLETON, Jr., Senior District Judge.

This Court denied habeas relief and a certificate of appealability to Sarah Weeden, a state prisoner represented by counsel. Docket Nos. 15, 16. Weeden timely filed a notice of appeal, Docket No. 17, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted her a certificate of appealability with respect to: 1) whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present expert testimony regarding her age and immaturity; and 2) whether she was entitled to a jury instruction on her age-related defense, Docket No. 3 (Ninth Cir. Case No. 14-17366). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit issued an order dated April 21, 2017, conditionally granting Weeden habeas relief on her ineffective assistance of counsel claim and remanding her case to this Court. Docket No. 23. On June 7, 2017, the mandate of the Ninth Circuit's judgment issued. Docket No. 24; Docket No. 38 (Ninth Cir. Case No. 14-17366). Later that day, this Court ordered Respondent to file notice by July 7, 2017, of whether the state intends to retry Weeden. Docket No. 25.

Counsel for petitioner now requests "that the order granting habeas relief be delayed an additional 30 days, to August 6, 2017," because he will be out of the country from July 2 through July 26, 2017. Docket No. 26. Because it is not yet clear whether an order granting habeas relief will issue, the Court finds that the extension request is premature.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Scheduling Request at Docket No. 26 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS PREMATURE. In the event that defense counsel renews his extension request, his submission shall indicate whether he has obtained Weeden's consent for the motion.

The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases