Free MOTION to Relate Case - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-05013-SI

Document 11

Filed 03/21/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General 3 GERALD A. ENGLER Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 PEGGY S. RUFFRA Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 MICHELE J. SWANSON, State Bar No. 191193 Deputy Attorney General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 6 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5703 7 Fax: (415) 703-1234 Email: [email protected] 8 9 Attorneys for Respondent 10 11 12 13 14 DANIEL MOORING, 15 Petitioner, 16 v. 17 J. WALKER, Warden, 18 Respondent. 19 TREMAYNE J. COLLIER, 20 Petitioner, 21 v. 22 ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden, 23 Respondent. 24 25 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12, respondent requests that the Court consider whether ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED C 07-5964 CW (pr) C 07-5013 SI (pr) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

26 the habeas corpus action in Mooring v. Walker, No. C 07-5013 SI (pr), filed on September 27, 27 2007, is related to another pending habeas corpus action, Collier v. Hedgpeth, No. C 07-5964 28 CW (pr), filed on November 27, 2007.
Admin. Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Mooring v. Walker Case No. C 07-5013 SI (pr)

1

Case 3:07-cv-05013-SI

Document 11

Filed 03/21/2008

Page 2 of 2

1

Mooring and Collier were co-defendants tried separately for murder and robbery in

2 San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 182125. 3 Both petitioners have alleged on habeas corpus that the introduction of other crimes

4 evidence violated their due process rights, that the prosecutor's late disclosure of a police report 5 violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that the introduction of a photograph of the 6 victim while alive violated their due process rights. Each petitioner also raises other claims on 7 habeas corpus. 8 Because both actions involve the same incidents and some of the same legal claims,

9 assignment to a single judge is likely to conserve judicial resources and promote an efficient 10 determination of the actions. Respondent therefore respectfully requests that the two actions be 11 related. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Admin. Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Mooring v. Walker Case No. C 07-5013 SI (pr)
40231420.wpd

Dated: March 20, 2008 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General GERALD A. ENGLER Senior Assistant Attorney General PEGGY S. RUFFRA Supervising Deputy Attorney General /s/ Michele J. Swanson MICHELE J. SWANSON Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent

SF2007403156

2