Catlin v. Ayers

Filing 70

ORDER Rescheduling Phase III Case Management Conference and to File Revised Budget for Phase III Under Seal, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/30/2014. Case Management Conference set for 5/27/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 (SAB) before Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEVEN DAVID CATLIN, 11 Petitioner, 12 v. 13 14 KEVIN CHAPPELL, as Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, Case No. 1:07-cv-01466 LJO-SAB ORDER RESCHEDULING PHASE III CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND TO FILE REVISED BUDGET FOR PHASE III UNDER SEAL [ECF No. 65] 15 Respondent. 16 NEW DATE: May 27, 2014 TIME: 10:00 a.m. COURTROOM 9 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Petitioner Steven David Catlin (“Petitioner”) filed an application for a stay of execution on October 5, 2007. On April 3, 2014, the Court set a Phase III Case Management Conference (“CMC”) following the appointment of CJA Attorney Richard Novak to replace Lynne Coffin as co-lead counsel for Petitioner Steven David Catlin. The CMC was scheduled for April 28, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. In light of Petitioner’s status report filed April 23, 2014, the Court is providing Petitioner’s attorneys (Mr. Novak, and continuing CJA attorney Saor Stetler) additional time to coordinate their efforts and prepare a proposed, amended Phase III budget. I. Petitioner’s Status Report In his status report Petitioner makes four main points. First, he reports that portions of the state record are not yet available electronically, so it is impossible to determine how long it 28 1 ORePhaseIIIBudget-Dic    1 will take Mr. Novak to complete his review of the core record. In regards to this point, Petitioner 2 notes that Mr. Novak, in collaboration with an experienced paralegal professional, is developing 3 a plan to make the electronic record to all members of Petitioner’s litigation team. Second, Petitioner requests that the petition, which is a 628-page document and reads like 4 5 a legal brief, requires more briefing due to the change in law since the petition was filed on 6 September 24, 2008. He objects that the Court’s has determined the legal authorities cited in the 7 petition are sufficient to resolve the claims and he argues the Court should not require 8 Respondent to respond to authorities cited in the petition that no longer are sound precedent. Third, he notes it is impossible to predict how long it will take Mr. Novak to review the 9 10 non-core materials, and therefore, to determine how long it will take to file a motion for further 11 evidentiary development. Finally, he notes that because of the volume of materials to review together with Mr. 12 13 Novak’s significant other representational obligations, including in a death penalty case pending 14 before this Court, Petitioner needs at least 120 days to respond by filing a memorandum 15 incorporating a chart identifying the claims he contends require further briefing. 16 II. Discussion 17 The Court rejects Petitioner’s proposal to prepare a memorandum identifying which 18 claims in the petition require more briefing. The Court is aware of intervening law, most notably 19 Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) and Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 20 ___, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011). Similarly, the Court is confident Respondent also is aware of 21 current applicable law and will not spend time responding to case law cited in the petition that is 22 no longer sound precedent. Next, the Court does not comprehend how if the number of pages in 23 the core and non-core record is known, Petitioner cannot calculate how much time Mr. Novak 24 will need to spend reviewing those records. Whatever this number of pages may be, the Court 25 will take into account that the record already has been reviewed by Mr. Stetler and that the Court 26 authorized experienced paralegal assistance for Mr. Novak to assist him in the review process. 27 At present, Petitioner has explained that the paralegal professional, along with Mr. Novak, is 28 developing a plan to make the electronic record available to all members of Petitioner’s litigation 2 ORePhaseIIIBudget-Dic    A ting phase of the Case Managemen Conferenc Petitioner attorneys will o M nt ce, r’s s 1 team. At the budget d planation ab bout that dis scussion. T remainin issues wi be The ng ill 2 be asked to provide further exp d ring, includin a re-eval ng luation of wh hether counsel is suitable for the pr resent 3 discussed at the hear ment dule. 4 appointm in light of his sched 5 As noted, the present petition is 628 pages and reads like a brief. As explained i the A e 8 in A 4 F he f by r motion 6 Court’s April 3, 2014 order [ECF No. 65], th next brief to be filed b Petitioner will be a m er ry ment. Petitio oner should be prepared to discuss if and when this d n 7 for furthe evidentiar developm w owed by Res spondent’s c comprehensi memoran ive ndum 8 motion will be filed. This brief will be follo s ities in oppo osition to the petition an the reques for an evi e nd st identiary hea aring. 9 of points and authori o omprehensiv reply, su ve upplementing his g 10 Petitioner will then have the opportunity to file a co 0 t ecent relevan cases. nt 11 argument with any re 12 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court set a hearing for May 27, 2014 at 4:0 p.m. to re B t ts 00 eview ication for Revised Budget for Phase III. Petitio R oner shall fil under seal his Applica le l ation, 13 the Appli 3 nce orney Guide one (1) we prior to the hearing The e, eek g. 14 prepared in accordan with the Fresno Atto 4 ion nt vedSealed@ @caed.uscour rts.gov for f filing. 15 Applicati shall be filed under seal and sen to Approv 5 er titute the sea aling order pursuant to L 141 for that applica p L.R. r ation and co ounsel 16 This orde will const 6 erence this order in the email along with the appl e w lication for p proposed bu udget. 17 shall refe 7 18 8 The toll-free teleconferen number is (877) 336T t nce i -1280 and co ounsel are d directed to co ontact om M andez at (559 499-5672 f the teleco 9) for onference cod de. 19 Courtroo Deputy Mamie Herna 9 20 0 21 22 2 IT IS SO ORD T DERED. Dated: D Ap 30, 201 pril 14 UNITE STATES MAGISTR ED S RATE JUDG GE 23 3 24 4 25 5 26 6 27 7 28 8 3 ORePhaseI IIIBudget-Dic   

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?