Vieira v. Ylst

Filing 101

ORDER GRANTING Petitioner's Request to Modify Briefing Schedule for Phase III of the Litigation, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/26/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 RICHARD J. VIEIRA, 9 Petitioner, 10 11 vs. Michael Martel, as Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison, 12 Respondent. 13 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:05-cv-1492-OWW DEATH PENALTY CASE ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PHASE III OF THE LITIGATION 14 Petitioner Richard John Vieira (“Vieira”) has submitted a request to modify the scheduling 15 order issued July 22, 2010, and last modified on July 11, 2011. Vieira’s counsel reports that counsel 16 for Respondent Michael Martel, as Acting Warden of San Quentin Prison (“the Warden”) has no 17 objection to the requested modification. 18 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, 19 1 Vieira’s reply to the Warden’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the 20 petition shall be filed on or before December 19, 2011. 21 2 22 anticipated that motions for formal discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing §2254 23 Cases or record expansion pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases will be presented 24 and resolved without altering the schedule for briefing the petition. 25 3 26 Governing § 2254 Cases on or before January 23, 2012. The evidentiary hearing motion shall be 27 limited to identification of: (a) the claims for which a hearing is sought; (b) an offer of proof as to 28 the evidence sought to be presented; (c) a brief statement of the legal grounds for the evidentiary The parties are encouraged to meet and confer about the need to conduct discovery. It is Vieira shall file his motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules 05dp1492.OGrantPetrReq2ModPhaseIIIBriefingSch.Vie.wpd 1 1 hearing; and (d) an explanation of diligence exercised in state court to develop the claims before the 2 California Supreme Court (see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). In light of the briefing of the petition, legal 3 analysis and citation of authorities in support of claims for which a hearing is sought will not be 4 necessary. The exception to presentation of legal analysis and citation to authority involves briefing 5 the application of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011), to Vieira’s entitlement to further 6 evidentiary development. 7 4 8 20, 2012. The Warden may address therein any issues relating to Pinholster, supra, pertaining to 9 further evidentiary development. The Warden shall file his opposition to the evidentiary hearing motion on or before February 10 5 Vieira shall file his reply to the opposition on or before March 26, 2012. 11 6 The matter thereafter will stand submitted. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED 14 15 Dated: October 26, 2011 16 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii Anthony W. Ishii, Chief United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 05dp1492.OGrantPetrReq2ModPhaseIIIBriefingSch.Vie.wpd 2

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?