(HC) Senteno v. State of California et al, No. 1:2008cv00694 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: CASE STATUS Following En Banc Decision in Hayward v. Marshall and BRIEFING ORDER signed by District Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 5/11/2010. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Respondents shall promptly notify the Court of the result of their appeal, including any associated instructions from the Ninth Circuit, accompanied by briefing to address the appropriate disposition of this Court's stay of the Order granting Senteno habeas relief. (Bradley, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 FRESNO DIVISION 12 13 PHILLIP ANGEL SENTENO, CASE NO. 08cv0694-JLS(JMA) 14 15 Petitioner, CASE STATUS FOLLOWING EN BANC DECISION IN HAYWARD V. MARSHALL AND BRIEFING ORDER vs. 16 17 18 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; DERRAL ADAMS, Warden, Respondents. 20 21 Petitioner Phillip Angel Senteno ("Senteno"), a state prisoner confined at the California 22 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison ("SATF"), Corcoran, proceeding pro se and in 23 forma pauperis, sought a 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 writ of habeas corpus challenging the Governor's reversal 24 of the Board of Parole Hearings' 2006 decision to grant him parole. This case, along with many other 25 habeas corpus cases raising parole denial issues under California law, highlighted a dispute regarding 26 the appropriate standard of review to apply, a question anticipated since 2008 to be clarified by the 27 Ninth Circuit's decision following its en banc rehearing of Hayward v. Marshall, 512 F.3d 536 (9th 28 Cir.), reh'g en banc granted 527 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2008). -1- 08cv0694 1 By Order entered December 8, 2009, the undesigned District Judge granted Senteno's Petition. 2 (Dkt No. 13.) Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Respondents requested 3 a stay of the Order granting Senteno habeas relief while they appeal that result. (Dkt No. 15.) On 4 December 21, 2009, in consideration of the unsettled state of the law in this area, the Court granted 5 the stay to preserve the status quo pending the outcome of the appeal and granted a Certificate of 6 Appealability. (Dkt Nos. 18, 19.) By Order entered March 11, 2010, the Ninth Circuit denied 7 Appellee's motion to vacate the Court's stay Order, granted Appellants' "motion to stay appellate 8 proceedings pending issuance of the mandate in Hayward v. Marshall, appeal No. 06-55392," and held 9 in abeyance Appellee's motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt No. 22.) 10 The Ninth Circuit filed its en banc Opinion in Hayward on April 22, 2010. After the mandate 11 in that case issues, the stay of appellate proceedings presumably will be lifted, and the appeal will 12 proceed in the normal course. Jurisdiction remains at this time with the appellate court. IT IS 13 HEREBY ORDERED Respondents shall promptly notify the Court of the result of their appeal, 14 including any associated instructions from the Ninth Circuit, accompanied by briefing to address the 15 appropriate disposition of this Court's stay of the Order granting Senteno habeas relief. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 20 DATED: May 11, 2010 Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 08cv0694

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.