Ernest DeWayne Jones v. Robert K. Wong

Filing 95

Second APPLICATION for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief on Application of 2254(d) 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, Warden of California
State Prison at San Quentin,

16

PETITIONER’S SECOND 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 sixty (60) day extension of time, to and including January 13, 2014,

21

to file his Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Opening § 2254(d) Brief

22

on Evidentiary Hearing Claims.

23

November 12, 2013.

24

Petitioner’s Reply is currently due to be filed

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 SECOND 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: November 8, 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 SECOND 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 SECOND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION

3

OF TIME TO FILE HIS REPLY BRIEF ON THE APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 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

(HCRC). I was appointed as lead counsel for Petitioner Ernest DeWayne Jones in the

9

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

10

2.

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

11

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

12

brief addressing how each of his claims for relief satisfies 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d).

13

The parties met and conferred, and filed a proposed briefing schedule with the Court

14

on April 12, 2012. Joint Stipulation And [Proposed] Order Re: Schedule For Merits

15

Briefing Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and 2254(d)(2) (“Joint Stipulation”), filed Apr.

16

12, 2012, ECF No. 76.

17

3.

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

18

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

19

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

20

Claims.

21

4.

This Court previously granted Petitioner’s request for a 90-day extension

22

of time. Pursuant to that request, Petitioner’s Reply is currently due to be filed

23

November 12, 2013.

24

5.

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

25

November 12, 2013. In addition to my duties as the Executive Director of HCRC, I am

26

the supervising attorney on nineteen cases pending before state and federal courts.

27

Although I have attempted to balance these competing case demands, because of the

28

staffing shortages and the California Supreme Court’s denial of extension requests to
3
PETITIONER’S SECOND 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

file informal replies in Case Nos. S154541 and S199918, I have had to assist other

2

supervisors with multiple conflicting state habeas corpus petition filing deadlines.

3

Thus, since receiving Respondent’s Opposition, because of staffing shortages, I have

4

assisted in drafting and filing four state habeas corpus petitions and two informal reply

5

in California Supreme Court Case Nos. S180670, S212038, S166315, S212256,

6

S154541, and S121365. I also am the supervisor on California Supreme Court Case

7

No. S095223 with a petition due date of July 30, 2014, and California Supreme Court

8

Case Nos. S199918, S180828, and S200323,with informal replies due on December 2,

9

2013, April 15, 2014, and October 24, 2014, respectively. Given the unforeseen need

10

to work on these other cases, I have been able to complete only limited work on

11

Petitioner’s Reply in this case.

12

6.

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Show Cause in San Mateo County Superior Case No. SC31145. Given these other

19

case commitments, Ms. Plunkett has been able to complete only limited work on

20

Petitioner’s Reply in this case.

21

7.

Similarly, since receiving Respondent’s Opposition, Ms. Lobo filed an

22

informal reply in California Supreme Court Case No. S174549. She also is preparing a

23

state habeas corpus petition in California Supreme Court Case No. S029551. Most

24

importantly, Ms. Lobo has recently given notice that she is resigning from the HCRC.

25

Her last day of employment will be November 15, 2013.

26

8.

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

27

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

28

require a 60-day extension of time to reply to Respondent’s Opposition.
4
PETITIONER’S SECOND 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

9.

Ms. Plunkett contacted Mr. Herbert Tetef, counsel for Respondent, and

2

informed him of the substance of this request for additional time, including the

3

proposed due date. On November 8, 2013, Mr. Tetef authorized Petitioner’s counsel to

4

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

5

10.

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

6

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

7

and this Court’s limited time.

8
9

The foregoing is true and correct and executed under penalty of perjury under
the laws of the United States on November 8, 2013.

10
11
12

/s/ Michael Laurence____________
Michael Laurence

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
PETITIONER’S SECOND 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