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)

Download PDF
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?