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)

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