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
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?