Summary
In Smith, the court determined that based on the cases cited by the petitioner there, cases which are incorporated by reference into Petitioner's response, "Petitioner has met his Bennett burden by showing a large number of cases demonstrating that California's contemporaneous objection rule had been applied inconsistently up to the time of petitioner's trial in 2002."
Summary of this case from Crew v. DavisOpinion
C 06-02972 MHP.
September 10, 2010
LARRY GENE SMITH, T-65308, Mule Creek State Prison, Ione, California, Petitioner Pro Se, Assisted by.
NEOMA KENWOOD (SBN 101805), Attorney at Law, Berkeley, California.
PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLEADING CONCERNING APPLICATION OF A STATE PROCEDURAL DEFAULT BAR
* AS AMENDED BY COURT
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Petitioner's request for leave to file, prior to the filing of his traverse, a separate pleading regarding procedural default NOT TO EXCEED 32 PAGES is granted. This pleading shall be filed not later than _ October 4, 2010 _________. Upon the Court's resolution of that pleading, petitioner shall than file his traverse NOT TO EXCEED 50 PAGESnot later than at a date to be set by the Court after review of the procedural default issues. If plaintiff does not use her page limit on procedural default wisely, the Court
Dated: ____________________________
September 10, 2010