Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Steven Allen Jones v. Mike Mcdonald

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 26, 2011

STEVEN ALLEN JONES, PETITIONER,
v.
MIKE MCDONALD, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Timothy J Bommer United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Petitioner, Steven Allen Jones, is a state prisoner proceeding with a counseled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In Claim I of his petition, Petitioner claims that his trial violated due process because the testimony of his accomplice, Leon Flanagan, was not corroborated as required by California law. See Cal. Penal Code § 1111. While Petitioner admits that a violation of Section 1111, by itself, does not warrant federal habeas relief, Petitioner contends that Section 1111 creates a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Laboa v. Calderon, 224 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 2000).

Since the parties submitted their final briefs, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Swarthout v. Cooke, __ U.S. __, 131 S.Ct 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). In that decision, the Court had the opportunity to discuss, within the context of parole, the scope of federal habeas review when a state-created liberty interest is at issue. Id. at 861-63.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall each file a brief within twenty-one (21) days of this Order addressing the impact (if any) that Swarthout v. Cooke has on this case.

20111026

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.