Jones v. Cate, 09-cv-01896-JM (RNB). (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180917956
Visitors: 15
Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ROBERT N. BLOCK , Magistrate Judge . The Court hereby advises counsel that they should be prepared to discuss at the upcoming October 16, 2018 Status Conference the form of habeas relief to which petitioner would be entitled if the Court were to conclude, after the evidentiary hearing, that petitioner was entitled to habeas relief with respect to Claim One of the First Amended Petition, but not entitled to habeas relief with respect to Claim Two. The Court notes
Summary: ORDER RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ROBERT N. BLOCK , Magistrate Judge . The Court hereby advises counsel that they should be prepared to discuss at the upcoming October 16, 2018 Status Conference the form of habeas relief to which petitioner would be entitled if the Court were to conclude, after the evidentiary hearing, that petitioner was entitled to habeas relief with respect to Claim One of the First Amended Petition, but not entitled to habeas relief with respect to Claim Two. The Court notes ..
More
ORDER RE: STATUS CONFERENCE
ROBERT N. BLOCK, Magistrate Judge.
The Court hereby advises counsel that they should be prepared to discuss at the upcoming October 16, 2018 Status Conference the form of habeas relief to which petitioner would be entitled if the Court were to conclude, after the evidentiary hearing, that petitioner was entitled to habeas relief with respect to Claim One of the First Amended Petition, but not entitled to habeas relief with respect to Claim Two.
The Court notes in this regard that petitioner's contention with respect to Claim One is that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not investigating and presenting a mental health defense at trial; and, more specifically, that if trial counsel had presented the affirmative defense of imperfect self-defense at trial, petitioner would have been only found guilty of manslaughter, and not second degree murder. (See ECF No. 141 at 26-35.)
Habeas corpus is "at its core, an equitable remedy." Gage v. Chappell, 793 F.3d 1159, (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 319 (1995)). Counsel should be prepared to discuss what remedy would be equitable should the Court conclude that habeas relief is warranted, but only with respect to Claim One.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
