Dickey v. Ylst

Filing 114

ORDER Clarifying Merits Brief Scheduling Order 111 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/21/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

COLIN RAKER DICKEY,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,
v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of California
State Prison at San Quentin,
Respondent.

16

) Case No.: 1:06-cv-00357 AWI
)
) ORDER CLARIFYING MERITS BRIEF
) SCHEDULING ORDER (DOC. 111)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18

On August 29, 2013, Respondent Kevin Chappell, as Warden of California State Prison at San

19

Quentin (the “Warden”) filed his answer and amended answer to the October 4, 2007 federal petition

20

of Petitioner Colin Raker Dickey (“Dickey”).1 The Warden’s amended answer (doc. 105) is the

21

operative answer. For case management purposes and as described in the Court’s Fresno Attorney

22

Guide (found on the Court’s public website), the filing of the answer moved the case into Phase III.

23

All work performed on the case after that date is considered to be part of Phase III, which is the case

24

phase for merits briefing and request(s) for further evidentiary development. In the present case,

25

briefing of the guilt and penalty phase proceedings at trial has been bifurcated. The Merits Brief

26

1

27

The case was on state exhaustion from July 18, 2008 until the California Supreme Court
denied Dickey’s second state habeas corpus petition, on May 23, 2012.

28

1
OClarifyingMeritsBriefSchedulingOrder-Dic

1

Scheduling Order (doc. 111), filed November 18, 2013, established a schedule for the briefing of the

2

merits and further evidentiary development of Dickey’s guilt phase claims.

3

If the Court files a favorable ruling on Dickey’s request for an evidentiary hearing with regards

4

to any of his guilt phase claims, the case will move into Phase IV. Granting relief following the

5

evidentiary hearing will terminate the case, but denying relief will return the case back to Phase III for

6

merits and evidentiary development briefing on penalty phase issues. During the present Phase III, if

7

the Court files an unfavorable ruling on the merits of all of Dickey’s guilt phase claims, the matter will

8

remain in Phase III for a further round of briefing on the penalty phase claims. Again if the Court files

9

a favorable ruling on Dickey’s request for an evidentiary hearing on any of his penalty phase claims,

10

the matter will move to Phase IV, where it will remain until all issues are resolved.

11

Other than the clarification that the case is in Phase III under case management principles and

12

the manner in which the Court will resolve the claims in the petition, there is no change in the briefing

13

schedule established by the November 18, 2013 order.2 That is Dickey’s merits brief and request for

14

factual development is due by April 16, 2014, the Warden’s opposition brief is due by September 8,

15

2014, and Dickey’s reply is due by November 7, 2014.

16

.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: March 21, 2014
/s/ Anthony W. Ishii
Anthony W. Ishii
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

27

In light of the inconclusive culmination of Phase III, the Court will need to amend the current
budget under which Dickey’s litigation team is working. Those proceedings will be conducted under
seal.

28

2
OClarifyingMeritsBriefSchedulingOrder-Dic