Free Notice (Other) - District Court of California - California


File Size: 11.3 kB
Pages: 2
Date: March 13, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 426 Words, 2,541 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/196279/10-1.pdf

Download Notice (Other) - District Court of California ( 11.3 kB)


Preview Notice (Other) - District Court of California
Case 3:07-cv-05013-SI

Document 10

Filed 03/13/2008

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 This is to give notice that the habeas corpus action in Mooring v. Walker, No. C 07NOTICE OF RELATED CASE 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 5013 SI (pr), is related to another pending habeas corpus action, Collier v. Hedgpeth, No. C 0727 5964 CW (pr), within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12. 28 Mooring and Collier were co-defendants tried separately for murder and robbery in
Notice of Related Case Mooring v. Walker Case No. C 07-5013 SI (pr)

1

Case 3:07-cv-05013-SI

Document 10

Filed 03/13/2008

Page 2 of 2

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

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

8 assignment to a single judge is likely to conserve judicial resources and promote an efficient 9 determination of the actions. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
40227911.wpd

Dated: March 13, 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

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SF2007403156

Notice of Related Case

Mooring v. Walker Case No. C 07-5013 SI (pr)

2