Catlin v. Ayers

Filing 90

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PETITIONERS UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF(Doc. No. 89) signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/21/2016. (Valdez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
STEVEN DAVID CATLIN,

11

Case No. 1:07-cv-01466-LJO-SAB

Petitioner,

12

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.

13

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED
APPLICATION FOR FIRST EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

RON DAVIS, Warden of California State
Prison at San Quentin,

14
15

Respondent.1

(Doc. No. 89)

16
Before the court is a motion by petitioner Steven David Catlin, through appointed CJA

17

18 counsel Saor Stetler and Richard Novak, to extend the deadline for filing his reply to
19 respondent’s answering merits brief and opposition to petitioner’s motion for evidentiary
20 development, from the current November 30, 2016 to January 31, 2017.
Counsel for petitioner state the requested relief is in the interest of justice because (i)

21

22 Proposition 62 on the November 8, 2016 California General Election Ballot, if adopted, could
23 moot the instant petition; and (ii) given the complexity of this case the reply brief cannot be
24 completed in the three weeks available following the election and prior to the current deadline.
25 (See Doc. No. 89-1.)
Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Novak, represents that counsel for respondent, deputy

26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Ron Davis, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, is substituted as respondent in
place of his predecessor wardens.

1

1 attorney general Stephen G. Herndon, does not object to the requested extension. (See Doc. No.
2 89-1 at ¶ 9.)
The court finds good cause for a reasonable extension of time sufficient for completion of

3

4 petitioner’s reply brief following the election results, but not for the length of time requested.
Having considered the record and moving papers including the argument of petitioner’s

5

6 counsel that the case is complex, the documents are voluminous and the reply brief is to address
7 respondent’s opposition both on the merits and to petitioner’s motion for evidentiary
8 development, the court is unpersuaded the request sixty day extension is necessary. Counsel has
9 significant and long-lived familiarity with this proceeding including its claims, defenses, merits
10 arguments and scheduled deadlines. Merits briefing was originally scheduled in April 2013.
11 (See Doc. No. 49.) Petitioner’s noted motion was filed on June 30, 2015. (See Doc. No. 84.)
12 Respondent’s answering brief on the merits and in opposition to petitioner’s motion for
13 evidentiary development was filed on June 1, 2016 (see Doc. No. 88), one month before
14 Proposition 62 qualified for the ballot.
Furthermore, counsel does not explain what portion of the work on the reply brief has

15

16 been completed and what portion remains to be completed. Notably, the instant extension
17 request, though the first on the reply brief, is the fifth such request since proceedings were
18 reinitiated on April 5, 2013 following state court exhaustion.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, petitioner’s unopposed motion for first extension of

19

20 time to file his reply to respondent’s answering brief on the merits and in opposition to
21 petitioner’s motion for evidentiary development is GRANTED-IN-PART to and including
22 January 9, 2017.
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated:

October 21, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2