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: (415) 348-3800
Facsimile: (415) 348-3873
E-mail:
docketing@hcrc.ca.gov
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
DEATH PENALTY CASE
v.
14
15
Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of
California State Prison at San
Quentin,
Respondent.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE
PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF
REGARDING THE APPLICATION
OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) IN EXCESS
OF PAGE LIMITS
18
19
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Petitioner’s Ex Parte Application to File
20
Petitioner’s Reply Brief Regarding the Application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) in
21
Excess of Page Limits is HEREBY GRANTED. Petitioner’s reply brief shall be
22
limited to 265 pages.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: ________________
___________________________
CORMAC J. CARNEY
United States District Judge
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 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
2
3
Dated: January 27, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER
4
5
6
7
By: / s / Michael Laurence
Michael Laurence
Attorney for Petitioner Ernest Dewayne Jones
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 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
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?