United States Ninth Circuit

Once the court of appeals has found a state procedural rule to be inadequate, habeas petitioners may fulfill their burden under Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573 (9th Cir. 2003), by simply challenging the adequacy of the procedure; the burden then shifts back to the government to demonstrate that the law has subsequently become adequate. In the matter at hand, the government must show on remand that the California timeliness rule has since been clarified for noncapital cases and that the clarified rule has since been consistently applied.

Appellate Information

• Argued 03/14/2006
• Decided 09/20/2006
• Published 09/20/2006

Judges

• Before ALFRED T. GOODWIN, STEPHEN REINHARDT, and MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Matthew Dale Alger, Clovis, CA, for the petitioner-appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Lisa Ashley Ott, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for the respondent-appellee.