Ernest DeWayne Jones v. Robert K. Wong

Filing 93

First APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File 2254(d) Reply Brief filed by Petitioner Ernest DeWayne Jones. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Plunkett, Cliona)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

MICHAEL LAURENCE, State Bar No. 121854
BETHANY LOBO, State Bar No. 248109
CLIONA PLUNKETT, State Bar No. 256648
HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER
303 Second Street, Suite 400 South
San Francisco, California 94107
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Petitioner ERNEST DEWAYNE JONES

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

11
12
13
14

Ernest Dewayne Jones,

Case No. CV-09-2158-CJC

Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.

15

Kevin Chappell, Acting Warden of
California State Prison at San Quentin,

16

PETITIONER’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A
REPLY BRIEF ON THE
APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)

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 ninety (90) day extension of time, to and including November 12,

21

2013, to file his reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Opening § 2254(d)

22

Brief on Evidentiary Hearing Claims. Petitioner’s reply is currently due to be filed

23

August 14, 2013.

24

Petitioner has advised Respondent’s counsel of this request, and counsel does

25

not object to the extension of time requested in the application.

26

information for counsel for Respondent is as follows:

27
28
1
PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)
CV-09-2158-CJC

The contact

1
2
3
4

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

5
6
7

This request is based on good cause as set forth in the attached Declaration of
Michael Laurence, Esq.

8
9
10

Dated: August 2, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER

11
12
13
14

/s/ Michael Laurence
By: Michael Laurence
Attorney for Ernest Dewayne Jones

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE REPLY 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 AN EXTENSION OF TIME

3

TO FILE HIS REPLY BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)

4

I, Michael Laurence, declare as follows:

5

1.

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

6

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

7

I was appointed as lead counsel for Petitioner Ernest DeWayne Jones in the above-

8

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

9

2.

On March 26, 2012, this Court issued an order denying without prejudice

10

Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and directing Petitioner to file an opening

11

brief addressing how each of his thirty claims for relief satisfies 28 U.S.C. section

12

2254(d)(1) and/or (d)(2). The parties met and conferred, and filed a proposed briefing

13

schedule with the Court on April 12, 2012. Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order

14

Re: Schedule For Merits Briefing Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and 2254(d)(2) (“Joint

15

Stipulation”), filed Apr. 12, 2012, ECF No. 76.

16

3.

Petitioner filed his opening brief on December 10, 2012. On June 15,

17

2013, following two requests for extensions of time totaling 105 days, Respondent

18

filed an Opposition to Petitioner's Opening § 2254(d) Brief on Evidentiary Hearing

19

Claims. Pursuant to the briefing schedule, Petitioner’s reply is due on August 14,

20

2013.

21

4.

Counsel will be unable to file a reply to Respondent’s Opposition by

22

August 14, 2013. In addition to my duties as the Executive Director of HCRC, I am

23

the supervising attorney on eighteen cases, and I have had to assist other supervisors

24

with multiple conflicting state habeas corpus petition filing deadlines. Since receiving

25

Respondent’s Opposition, I have assisted in filing four state habeas corpus petitions

26

and one informal reply in California Supreme Court Case Nos. S180670, S212038,

27

S166315, S212256, and S154541.

28

5.

Due to staff turnover and mandatory furloughs, Ms. Plunkett and Ms.
3

PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)
CV-09-2158-CJC

1

Lobo have experienced increased workloads and have been required to assist on other

2

cases with imminent filing deadlines, in addition to their assigned cases. Ms. Plunkett

3

is currently preparing state habeas corpus petitions in two cases (California Supreme

4

Court Case Nos. S089609 and S044693) and an informal reply (California Supreme

5

Court Case No. S206945), in addition to ongoing litigation relating to an Order to

6

Show Cause in San Mateo County Superior Case No. SC31145.

7

6.

Similarly, Ms. Lobo is currently working on an informal reply in

8

California Supreme Court Case No. S174549, with a filing deadline of October 30,

9

2013. She also is preparing a state habeas corpus petition in California Supreme Court

10
11

Case No. S029551.
7.

Given other litigation demands and the novel and complex nature of the

12

section 2254(d) issues before this Court, it is my professional judgment that we will

13

need a 90-day extension of time to reply to Respondent’s Opposition.

14

8.

On August 2, 2013, Ms. Plunkett contacted Mr. Herbert Tetef, counsel for

15

Respondent, and informed him of the substance of this request for additional time,

16

including the proposed due date. Mr. Tetef authorized petitioner’s counsel to represent

17

to the Court that he does not object to the length of time being requested.

18

9.

Granting this extension will permit counsel to draft and edit the Reply

19

Brief to ensure the avoidance of repetitive arguments and thus conserve the parties’

20

and this Court’s limited time.

21
22

The foregoing is true and correct and executed under penalty of perjury under
the laws of the United States on August 2, 2013.

23
24
25

/s/ Michael Laurence____________
Michael Laurence

26
27
28
4
PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)
CV-09-2158-CJC