Ernest DeWayne Jones v. Robert K. Wong

Filing 101

APPLICATION to Exceed Page Limitation Reply Brief Re: Application of 28 USC 2254(d) filed by Petitioner Ernest DeWayne Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Plunkett, Cliona)

7

Michael Laurence (Bar No. 121854)
Barbara Saavedra (Bar No. 191628)
Cliona Plunkett (Bar No. 256648)
HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER
303 Second Street, Suite 400 South
San Francisco, California 94107
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail:
[e-mail]

8

Attorneys for Petitioner Ernest Dewayne Jones

1
2
3
4
5
6

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

ERNEST DEWAYNE JONES,
Petitioner,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.

14
15

Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of
California State Prison at San
Quentin,
Respondent.

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE
PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
REGARDING THE APPLICATION
OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) IN EXCESS
OF PAGE LIMITS

Pursuant to Rule 7-19 of the Local Rules for the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Petitioner Ernest Dewayne Jones hereby
applies for an order granting him permission to file Petitioner’s Reply Brief
Regarding the Application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) in excess of fifty pages. See
Order Granting Extension to File Opening Brief and Imposing Page Limit, filed
September 6, 2012, ECF No. 81 (setting page limit at fifty pages).
Petitioner attempted to contact respondent’s counsel to advise him of this
request, but was unsuccessful. The contact information for counsel for respondent
is as follows:

27
28

1
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) IN
EXCESS OF PAGE LIMITS

Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC

5

HERBERT S. TETEF
Deputy Attorney General
300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6

The reasons for this application are set out in the attached Declaration of

1
2
3
4

7

Michael Laurence.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Dated: January 27, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER
By: / s / Michael Laurence
Michael Laurence
Attorney for Petitioner Ernest Dewayne Jones

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) IN
EXCESS OF PAGE LIMITS

Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC

1

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL LAURENCE

2

I, Michael Laurence, declare as follows:

3

1.

I am an attorney at law admitted to practice by the State of California

4

and before this Court. I am the Executive Director of the Habeas Corpus Resource

5

Center. I was appointed as lead counsel for Petitioner Ernest Dewayne Jones in the

6

above-referenced matter by this Court in an order dated April 14, 2009.

7

2.

On November 12, 2013, this Court issued an order granting an

8

extension of time in which to file Petitioner’s Reply Briefing Under Section

9

2254(d), to January 13, 2014, and ordered Petitioner to address “how each of the

10

thirty claims asserted in his petition satisfies § 2254(d)(1) and/or § 2254(d)(2)”

11

(emphasis in original). ECF No. 96.

12

3.

On January 7, 2014, Petitioner filed a request for an additional thirty

13

days by which to file the brief on the non-evidentiary hearing claims. ECF No. 98.

14

On January 9, 2014, this Court ordered Petitioner to file his reply brief no later

15

than January 27, 2014.

16

3.

Petitioner’s brief replies to arguments made by respondent in his

17

opposition with respect to those claims raised in the Motion for Evidentiary

18

Hearing, and also contains briefing under section 2254(d) for all remaining claims

19

contained in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The briefing requires, at the

20

very least, the following four tasks: (1) describing the current federal habeas legal

21

framework applicable to all of the claims, including recent decisions; (2)

22

documenting the prima facie showing that was made in state court for each claim,

23

including respondent’s informal response and the state court’s order(s); (3) setting

24

out relevant details of the clearly established federal law for each claim; and (4)

25

conducting detailed analysis under sections 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2) for each claim.

26

4.

The state court record was extensive and the claims raised in state

27

court were factually complex and involved numerous sub-claims. With respect to

28

1
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) IN
EXCESS OF PAGE LIMITS

Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC

1

the claims raised in the state habeas corpus petitions, the state court did not issue

2

an opinion based on specific facts and legal conclusions that would narrow the

3

relevant issues to address; instead, the state court summarily denied all the claims

4

contained in the state habeas corpus proceedings.

5

2254(d) briefing addresses a wide variety of factual and legal determinations that

6

may have informed the state court’s silent denial.

7

5.

Consequently, our section

We have attempted to comply with the Court’s page limit; however,

8

additional space is necessary to adequately address the general application of

9

section 2254(d) to all claims contained in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

10

Given the above-described factors and the importance of the briefed issues to

11

resolving the merits of this case, 265 pages is necessary to complete the current

12

briefing and provide respondent and this Court a sufficient basis for addressing the

13

application of section 2254(d) in this case.

14

6.

On January 27, 2014, Cliona Plunkett telephoned Herbert S. Tetef,

15

Deputy Attorney General, and counsel for Respondent, and left a voicemail

16

message informing him of this request.

17

message.

18
19

Mr. Tetef has not responded to the

The foregoing is true and correct and executed under penalty of perjury
under the laws of the United States on January 27, 2014.

20
21

/s/ Michael Laurence

22

Michael Laurence
Counsel for Ernest Dewayne Jones

23
24
25
26
27
28

2
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) IN
EXCESS OF PAGE LIMITS

Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC