Montez v. Premo

Montez v. Premo

Petitioner:	Marco Montez
Respondent:	Jeff Premo
Case Number:	3:2014cv01551
Filed:	September 30, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office:	Portland (3) Office
Presiding Judge:	Michael J. McShane
Nature of Suit:	Prisoner Petitions: Habeas Corpus (Death Penalty)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Stay of Execution
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 23, 2019	Filing 69 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court grants petitioner's Motion to Stay 66 in accordance with Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). This action is stayed during the pendency of petitioner's state post-conviction proceeding s. Petitioner shall file his state court petition within 60 days of the date of this Order and must move to lift this stay within 60 days of the completion of the state court proceedings. Signed on 12/23/2019 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) Modified on 12/23/2019 to add the word Opinion, Resent NEF(cp).
October 15, 2018	Filing 50 Opinion and Order: The Court concludes that the following claims are procedurally defaulted and that the petitioner had failed to show that the Court should exercise their default: Claims 2, 4, 17, 20, 26, 27, 28, 31, and 32. Accordingly, the Court dismisses them with prejudice. The parties agree that the following claims are not ripe for review, and are therefore dismissed without prejudice as premature: Claims 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37. In addition to the claims the parties agree were properly exhausted before the Oregon state courts (Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30) the Court concludes the following were also properly exhausted: Claims 7 and 15. Moreover, respondent waives the defense of proced ural default with regard to Claims 38 and 39. These claims may proceed to consideration on the merits. The Court withholds judgment on procedural default until the merits of the following claims are discussed in future briefing: Claims 6, 13, 14, and 40.The Court directs the parties to propose a joint scheduling order to proceed with briefing on the relevant claims on the merits. Joint status report is due by 11/1/2018. Signed on 10/15/2018 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 23, 2019

Filing 69 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court grants petitioner's Motion to Stay 66 in accordance with Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). This action is stayed during the pendency of petitioner's state post-conviction proceeding s. Petitioner shall file his state court petition within 60 days of the date of this Order and must move to lift this stay within 60 days of the completion of the state court proceedings. Signed on 12/23/2019 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp) Modified on 12/23/2019 to add the word Opinion, Resent NEF(cp).

October 15, 2018

Filing 50 Opinion and Order: The Court concludes that the following claims are procedurally defaulted and that the petitioner had failed to show that the Court should exercise their default: Claims 2, 4, 17, 20, 26, 27, 28, 31, and 32. Accordingly, the Court dismisses them with prejudice. The parties agree that the following claims are not ripe for review, and are therefore dismissed without prejudice as premature: Claims 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37. In addition to the claims the parties agree were properly exhausted before the Oregon state courts (Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, and 30) the Court concludes the following were also properly exhausted: Claims 7 and 15. Moreover, respondent waives the defense of proced ural default with regard to Claims 38 and 39. These claims may proceed to consideration on the merits. The Court withholds judgment on procedural default until the merits of the following claims are discussed in future briefing: Claims 6, 13, 14, and 40.The Court directs the parties to propose a joint scheduling order to proceed with briefing on the relevant claims on the merits. Joint status report is due by 11/1/2018. Signed on 10/15/2018 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Montez v. Premo
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Marco Montez
Represented By:	Michael R. Levine
Represented By:	Kendra M. Matthews
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Jeff Premo
Represented By:	Rafael A. Caso
Represented By:	Kathleen M. Cegla
Represented By:	Gregory A. Rios
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?