Weaver v. Woodford

Filing 193

ORDER GRANTING In Part Petitioner's 191 Application for Extension of Time; ORDER MODIFYING 183 Briefing Schedule for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims; ORDER DIRECTING Parties to Submit Joint Statement Regarding Record Claims, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/23/2015. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WARD FRANCIS WEAVER, JR., 12 13 14 15 16 Case No. 1:02-cv-05583 AWI-SAB Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 191) KEVIN CHAPPEL, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Respondent. ORDER MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS (ECF No. 183) 17 18 ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO SUBMIT JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING RECORD CLAIMS 19 20 21 Before the Court is an April 21, 2015 application filed by Petitioner, through counsel, to 22 extend the deadline for filing the opening brief on ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) 23 claims from the current June 1, 2015 to August 30, 2015. Counsel cite unavoidable delays 24 arising from locating and hiring qualified investigators, an injury to one of the investigators, 25 witness unavailability, paralegal unavailability, and their significant capital caseload. Counsel 26 state Respondent’s non-opposition to the application. 27 The Court finds good cause to extend the deadline for Petitioner’s opening brief, but to a 28 1 1 date earlier than that requested in the application. Counsel have not demonstrated unavoidable 2 delay relating to hiring investigators, scheduling paralegal time, and their responsibilities in other 3 capital cases. The need to plan for these matters was readily apparent on September 4, 2014, 4 when the Court set the current briefing schedule. Lack of diligence by counsel impacts the 5 Court’s management of its exceedingly heavy caseload. Counsel are advised that no further 6 extensions will be granted. 7 The September 4, 2014 briefing schedule shall be modified in light of the extension 8 granted herein. 9 As to the record claims for which briefing has not been scheduled, the Court is aware that 10 previously cases in the Eastern District proceeded on limited claims with briefing of the 11 remaining claims occurring after resolution of the limited claims. The Court finds that this has 12 resulted in undue delay in addressing the claims of the Petitioner. Upon review of the status and 13 history of this action, the Court determines that the parties shall be required to file a joint 14 statement regarding phase III briefing of the record claims not covered by the Court’s March 24, 15 2014 order. 16 Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. On or before August 3, 2015, the parties are directed to meet and confer and file a 18 joint statement regarding all record claims not covered by the Court’s March 24, 19 2014 order, setting forth in detail a proposed schedule for submission of points 20 and authorities addressing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) in support of and opposition to 21 these claims; Petitioner’s reply; and any motion(s) for factual development. The 22 joint statement shall also address any objections, procedural issues and other 23 matters that need to be discussed before these record claims move to phase III 24 and, if applicable, a timeline for litigating them; 25 2. On or before August 3, 2015, Petitioner shall file an opening brief addressing the 26 ineffective assistance of counsel issues raised in the Court’s March 24, 2014 27 order; 28 3. On or before November 2, 2015, Respondent’s opposing brief shall be filed; and 2 4. 1 On or before December 21, 2015, Petitioner’s reply brief shall be filed. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 23, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?