Vieira v. Ylst

Filing 95

ORDER Revised Briefing Schedule, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 7/8/2011. (Kusamura, W)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD JOHN VIEIRA, Case No. 1:05-cv-01492 OWW (DP) 12 Petitioner, ORDER REVISED BRIEFING SCHEDULE 13 v. 14 15 CAPITAL CASE MICHAEL MARTEL, ACTING WARDEN, 16 Respondent. 17 18 Respondent Michael Martel, as Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden,” 19 has submitted a request to modify the scheduling order issued July 22, 2010, and last modified 20 June 1, 2011 (doc. 92). The Warden’s counsel reports that counsel for Petitioner Richard J. 21 Vieira (“Vieira”) has no objection to the requested modification. 22 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, 23 1. The Warden’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the petition shall 24 be filed on or before August 4, 2011. The Warden shall defer his discussion of the application of 25 Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), until briefing on Petitioner Vieira’s anticipated 26 motion for an evidentiary hearing. 27 2. Vieira shall file a reply brief on or before November 2, 2011. 28 /// 1 Order (1:05-cv-01492 OWW (DP)) PDF created with pdfFactory trial version 1 3. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer about the need to conduct discovery. It is 2 anticipated that motions for formal discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing § 2254 3 Cases or record expansion pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases will be 4 presented and resolved without altering the schedule for briefing the petition. 5 4. Vieira shall file his motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules 6 Governing § 2254 Cases on or before December 7, 2011. The evidentiary hearing motion shall 7 be limited to identification of: (a) the claims for which a hearing is sought; (b) an offer of proof as 8 to the evidence sought to be presented; (c) a brief statement of the legal grounds for the 9 evidentiary hearing; and (d) an explanation of diligence exercised in state court to develop the 10 claims before the California Supreme Court (see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). In light of the briefing 11 of the petition, legal analysis and citation of authorities in support of claims for which a hearing is 12 sought will not be necessary. The exception to presentation of legal analysis and citation to 13 authority involves briefing the application of Pinholster to Vieira’s entitlement to further 14 evidentiary development. 15 16 17 5. The Warden shall file his opposition to the evidentiary hearing motion on or before January 4, 2012. 6. Vieira shall file his reply to the opposition on or before February 10, 2012. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 Dated: July 8, 2011 __________________________/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER_ _____________________________ United States District Court Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Order (1:05-cv-01492 OWW (DP)) PDF created with pdfFactory trial version

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?