Ernest DeWayne Jones v. Robert K. Wong

Filing 78

APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Opening Brief on the Application of 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 filed by Petitioner Ernest DeWayne Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Laurence, Michael)

Download PDF
5 MICHAEL LAURENCE, State Bar No. 121854 CLIONA PLUNKETT, State 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 Email: docketing@hcrc.ca.gov mlaurence@hcrc.ca.gov 6 Attorneys for Petitioner ERNEST DEWAYNE JONES 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 11 Ernest Dewayne Jones, Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 14 15 16 v. PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 180-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN OPENING BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) Kevin Chappell, Acting Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent. 17 18 Pursuant to Rule 7-19 of the Local Rules for the United States District Court for 19 the Central District of California, Petitioner Ernest Dewayne Jones hereby applies for 20 an order granting a 180-day extension of time, to and including March 11, 2013, to file 21 his Opening Brief addressing how each of his claims for relief in his Petition for Writ 22 of Habeas Corpus satisfies 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d)(1) and/or (d)(2). Petitioner’s 23 brief is currently due to be filed September 10, 2012. 24 Petitioner has advised Respondent’s counsel of this request, and counsel objects 25 to the length of time requested in the application. The contact information for counsel 26 for Respondent is as follows: 27 28 1 PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 180-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) CV-09-2158-CJC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HERBERT S. TETEF Deputy Attorney General 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 897-0201 Facsimile: (213) 897-6496 Email: DocketingLAAWT@doj.ca.gov The reasons for this application are set forth in the attached Declaration of Michael Laurence, Esq. As counsel’s declaration explains, unanticipated developments compel this request for an extension to file the Opening Brief until and including March 11, 2013. 10 11 12 Dated: September 4, 2012 Respectfully submitted, HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER 13 14 15 16 /s/ Michael Laurence By: Michael Laurence Attorney for Ernest Dewayne Jones 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 180-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) CV-09-2158-CJC 1 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL LAURENCE IN SUPPORT OF 2 PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 180-DAY EXTENSION 3 OF TIME TO FILE HIS OPENING BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 4 U.S.C. § 2254(d) 5 I, Michael Laurence, declare as follows: 6 1. I am an attorney at law admitted to practice by the State of California and 7 before this Court. I am the Executive Director of the Habeas Corpus Resource Center. 8 I was appointed as lead counsel for Petitioner Ernest DeWayne Jones in the above- 9 referenced matter by this Court in an order dated April 14, 2009. 10 2. On March 26, 2012, this Court issued an order denying Petitioner’s 11 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and directing Petitioner to file an opening brief 12 addressing how each of his thirty claims for relief satisfies 28 U.S.C. section 13 2254(d)(1) and/or (d)(2). The parties met and conferred, and filed a proposed briefing 14 schedule with the Court on April 12, 2012. Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order 15 Re: Schedule For Merits Briefing Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and 2254(d)(2) (“Joint 16 Stipulation”), filed Apr. 12, 2012, ECF No. 76. On April 16, 2012, this Court issued a 17 briefing schedule ordering Petitioner to file his opening brief by September 10, 2012. 18 3. Due to anticipated and unanticipated litigation commitments in other 19 cases, counsel have not been able to devote the time required to prepare Petitioner’s 20 brief by the current due date. As explained in the Joint Stipulation, counsel requested 21 December 17, 2012 as the due date for the filing of the Opening Brief because of 22 counsel’s extraordinary workload. Joint Statement at 3 (noting that lead counsel was 23 required to prepare and file state habeas corpus petitions in two cases, informal reply 24 briefs in three state cases, and a federal habeas corpus petition in two cases and post- 25 evidentiary hearing briefing and a motion for an evidentiary hearing in two federal 26 cases). This workload unexpectedly increased exponentially with the departure of 27 experienced attorneys with filing deadlines merely months from their separation dates. 28 I filed a state habeas petition in California Supreme Court Case No. S049626 on 3 PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 180-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) CV-09-2158-CJC 1 August 6, 2012. In that case, one of the assigned staff attorneys resigned just months 2 before the petition was due, requiring me to assume unanticipated additional work to 3 prepare the petition. I also was required to devote a significant amount of time to assist 4 with the preparation of the amended petition in California Supreme Court Case No. 5 S167195, which was filed on August 27, 2012. In that case, one assigned staff attorney 6 went on family leave in June 2012. In addition, since this Court’s April 16, 2012 7 order, I have filed a 71-page post-evidentiary hearing reply brief in Ashmus v. 8 Chappell, No. 93-CV-00594-TEH (N.D. Cal.), and a 542-page evidentiary hearing 9 brief in Taylor v. Chappell, No. CV-07-6602 (C.D. Cal.). 10 4. In addition, I was required to devote a great amount of time to responding 11 to unforeseen litigation in People v. Sims, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 12 A591707, in which I am counsel of record. Despite the existence of a federal stay of 13 execution and a state court injunction prohibiting executions, on May 1, 2012, the Los 14 Angeles County District Attorney filed a motion asking the court to set a hearing to set 15 an execution date for Mr. Mitchell Sims and seeking to compel the California 16 Department of Corrections to execute him using a one drug protocol. Litigating that 17 motion has involved significant research, briefing, preparation for hearings, and 18 arguing at hearings in Los Angeles. In addition to drafting extensive pleadings in the 19 matter, I am required to prepare for and attend an evidentiary hearing scheduled for 20 September 10. 2012, on the CDCR’s ability to conduct single-drug execution. 21 22 23 5. Finally, I am responsible for drafting and filing the petition in Maury v. Chappell, No. 2:12-cv-1043 (E.D. Cal.), on or before October 24, 2012. 6. Similarly, Ms. Cliona Plunkett has been unable to devote time to the 24 Opening Brief. Beginning in mid-April 2012, Ms. Plunkett devoted the majority of her 25 time to the preparation of a denial to a return to an order to show cause that was filed 26 on May 7, 2012 in San Mateo County Superior Case No. SC31145. In addition to 27 responding to each of the material allegations in the return why petitioner in that case 28 is ineligible for the death penalty within the meaning of Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 4 PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 180-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) CV-09-2158-CJC 1 2 304 (2002), the denial also had to address deficiencies in the pleadings. 7. Over the next three months, Ms. Plunkett and I must prepare and file a 3 state habeas corpus petition due on November 28, 2012, in California Supreme Court 4 Case No. S029843. Since May, Ms. Plunkett has had to focus almost exclusively on 5 the preparation of this state habeas petition due to the unexpected resignation in June 6 of the other assigned staff attorney and my inability to assist prior to my August state 7 habeas filing deadlines. Preparation of the petition in that case is complicated because 8 the case involves multiple codefendants and multiple victims. The schedule for filing 9 the state petition in that case, therefore, makes it impossible to meet our deadline to file 10 our opening brief in this case. However, there is a collateral benefit to extending the 11 deadline in this case: should California voters adopt Proposition 34 on November 6, 12 section 2254(d) briefing on Petitioner’s penalty phase claims will become moot, 13 thereby conserving judicial resources. 14 8. Since this Court issued its March 26, 2012 order, HCRC has gained 15 substantially more experience briefing § 2254(d) issues, including a (1) Motion for an 16 Evidentiary Hearing in Taylor v. Chappell, No. CV 07-6602-DMG (C.D. Cal.) (filed 17 6/13/2012); (2) Petitioner’s Reply Brief on Claims Four and Five in Ashmus v. 18 Chappell, No. 3:93-cv-00594-TEH (N.D. Cal.) (filed 5/3/12); and (3) Petitioner’s 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254(d) Brief in Coffman v. Johnson, No. CV 06-7304 ABC (C.D. Cal.) (to 20 be filed this month). 21 9. In each of these cases, the California Supreme Court failed to provide any 22 reasons for denying all of the petitioner’s claims without an evidentiary hearing. 23 Consequently, we have learned that section 2254(d) briefing requires us to devote 24 substantial time to researching the California Supreme Court’s published decisions on 25 similar claims to determine the court’s legal rationale for rejecting our clients’ claims. 26 In addition, the emerging case law interpreting Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 27 (2011), and Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) is novel and complex. In our 28 experience, the resulting section 2254(d) briefs are complicated and voluminous. 5 PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 180-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) CV-09-2158-CJC 1 10. On August 20, 2012, Ms. Plunkett contacted Mr. Herbert Tetef, counsel 2 for Respondent, and informed him of the substance of this request for additional time, 3 including the proposed due date. Mr. Tetef authorized petitioner’s counsel to represent 4 to the Court that he objects to the length of time being requested. 5 11. Granting this extension will permit counsel to draft and edit the Opening 6 Brief to ensure the avoidance of repetitive arguments and thus conserve the parties’ 7 and this Court’s limited time. Given the significant and unanticipated case obligations 8 that counsel must fulfill through the remainder of 2012, and the work that must be 9 completed on the Opening Brief, I anticipate filing the Opening Brief on or before 10 11 12 March 11, 2013. The foregoing is true and correct and executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States on September 4, 2012. 13 14 15 /s/ Michael Laurence____________ Michael Laurence 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 180-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OPENING BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) 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?