Slaughter v. Stokes

Filing 107

ORDER Setting Case Management Conference for 5/26/2015 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/13/2015. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL COREY SLAUGHTER, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:05-cv-00922-AWI-SAB DEATH PENALTY CASE Petitioner, v. ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, Date: May 26, 2015 Time: 1:30 p.m. TELEPHONIC 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ May 7, 2015 joint statement regarding 19 phase III scheduling (ECF No. 106). By this order, the Court sets a telephonic case management 20 conference to establish a schedule for phase III. 21 22 I. BACKGROUND On September 29, 2005, Petitioner filed a “protective” federal petition pursuant to Pace v. 23 DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). Stay and abeyance of these proceedings was granted on 24 November 7, 2005, pursuant to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), to allow state exhaustion. 25 The California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s state habeas petition on October 31, 2007. 26 Petitioner filed an amended federal petition on October 3, 2008 and concurrently filed a 27 second state habeas petition alleging claims based on new evidence discovered by federal habeas 28 1 1 counsel. On December 19, 2008, these proceedings were again ordered held in abeyance 2 pending state exhaustion. On June 25, 2014, Petitioner’s state habeas petitions were denied and 3 his lodged second amended federal petition was deemed filed. 4 On December 15, 2014, Respondent filed his amended answer to the second amended 5 petition. 6 On January 9, 2015, the Court ordered that claim 47 be dismissed. 7 On March 9, 2015, the Court ordered that unexhausted allegations be stricken from 8 claims 7 and 19, and directed the parties to file the above referenced phase III joint statement. II. 9 10 DISCUSSION The parties’ joint statement demonstrates that Respondent does not intend to file an 11 amended answer to the second amended petition; that all remaining claims in the second 12 amended petition have been exhausted; and that no procedural or limitations issues require 13 discussion prior to moving this case to phase III. 14 The parties each propose a phase III briefing schedule that assumes cited resource 15 limitations and obligations in other cases will continue unabated. Petitioner proposes a schedule 16 under which claim briefing would be completed by August 1, 2017, and motion(s) for 17 evidentiary development would be fully briefed by February 12, 2018. Respondent proposes a 18 schedule under which claim briefing would be completed by April 17, 2017, and motion(s) for 19 evidentiary development would be fully briefed by October 2, 2017. 20 Respondent suggests the parties should brief the full scope of the merits under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2254 including procedural defenses and retroactivity under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 22 (1989). This instead of the more limited 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) briefing proposed by the Court. 23 Respondent states that full scope briefing would limit the number of claims requiring subsequent 24 briefing on retroactivity and procedural defenses without significantly increasing the time 25 required for phase III briefing. 26 The Court will conduct a phase III case management conference to address these and 27 other issues. Specifically, the parties should be prepared to address the facts underlying their 28 current scheduling assumptions; their respective positions regarding the appropriate scope of 2 1 phase III briefing; how expanding the scope of phase III briefing might impact scheduling; and 2 options for expediting phase III briefing. The merits of the claims alleged in the second 3 amended petition will be addressed prior to procedural and Teague defenses. III. 4 ORDER Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that a telephonic phase III case management 5 6 conference is set for May 26, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 9 before the undersigned. The 7 attorneys are directed to contact the Court’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Mamie Hernandez, to 8 obtain the teleconference code. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: May 13, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?