(HC) Collier v. Tilton, No. 2:2007cv00761 - Document 61 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 2/18/2011 ORDERING Based on a thorough review of the record, and because the anticipated Supreme Court decision may resolve the procedural default issue in this case, it appears that the interests of justice will be best served by a brief delay before findings and recommendations issue. ACCORDINGLY the parties shall notify the court within 10 days after the Supreme Court issues a decision in Martin v. Walker. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
(HC) Collier v. Tilton Doc. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 CURTIS LYNN COLLIER, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0761 LKK CHS P vs. JAMES E. TILTON, et al., Respondents. ORDER / Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through appointed counsel with a third 18 amended petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner 19 attacks his conviction in the Yuba County Superior Court, case number CRF-01-723, for the 20 manufacture, possession and sale of methamphetamine. 21 In response to a June 2, 2010 order requesting briefing on whether it was 22 appropriate to expand the record pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing §2254 cases with 23 declarations that were attached to the pro se petition and relevant to petitioner’s ineffective 24 assistance of counsel claim, both parties have indicated their agreement that the record need not 25 be expanded pursuant to Rule 7 because petitioner presented those declarations to the California 26 Supreme Court as part of his November 30, 2007 habeas corpus petition. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Nevertheless, the parties disagree whether all of petitioner’s ineffective assistance 2 of counsel claims are barred by an independent and adequate procedural bar, specifically, the 3 timeliness bar. Petitioner did not present his ineffective assistance of counsel claims to the 4 California Supreme Court until nearly six years after the commitment offense, and those claims 5 were summarily denied with citation to In re Robbins, 18 Cal.4th 770 (1998), indicating that the 6 petition was untimely. See Thorson v. Palmer, 479 F.3d 643, 645 (9th Cir. 2007). Both parties 7 noted that, while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has previously held 8 that California’s timeliness bar is not “an adequate state bar” for the purpose of procedural 9 default (see Townsend v. Knowles, 562 F.3d 1200, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009), the United States 10 Supreme Court granted certiorari on this precise issue in Martin v. Walker, 357 Fed. Appx. 793, 11 2009 WL 4884581 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. granted 130 S.Ct. 3464 (Jun. 21, 2010). Oral arguments 12 were heard on November 29, 2010, and a decision could be imminent. 13 Based on a thorough review of the record, and because the anticipated Supreme 14 Court decision may resolve the procedural default issue in this case, it appears that the interests 15 of justice will be best served by a brief delay before findings and recommendations issue. 16 Accordingly, the parties shall notify the court within ten days after the Supreme 17 Court issues a decision in Martin v. Walker, 357 Fed. Appx. 793, 2009 WL 4884581 (9th Cir. 18 2009), cert. granted 130 S.Ct. 3464 (Jun. 21, 2010). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: February 18, 2011 21 CHARLENE H. SORRENTINO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.