Roberts v. Ayers, et al

Filing 519

STIPULATION and ORDER Setting Forth Briefing Schedule signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/16/2014 and agreed between the parties. Respondent shall file a supplemental brief in support of Answer on Non-Evidentiary Hearing Claims on or before 11/13/14; Petitioner shall file a supplemental brief in support of Traverse on Non-Evidentiary Hearing Claims on or before 2/11/2015. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, State Bar No. 122664 Federal Defender BRIAN ABBINGTON, Texas State Bar No. 00790500 HARRY SIMON, State Bar No. 133112 Assistant Federal Defenders 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 498-5700; FAX (916) 498-6656 ROBERT BLOOM Law Offices of Robert Bloom 3355 Richmond Boulevard Oakland, CA 94611 Telephone: (510) 595-7766 Facsimile: (510) 595-8384 Attorneys for Petitioner LARRY ROBERTS 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 LARRY ROBERTS Petitioner, 16 17 18 vs. KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, 19 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 2:93-cv-00254-TLN-DAD DEATH PENALTY CASE STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING FORTH BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON NONEVIDENTIARY HEARING CLAIMS 20 21 22 23 On July 15, 2003, Petitioner Larry Roberts filed his Second Amended Petition (Doc. 248) in this case. On January 20, 2004, Respondent Warden filed his Answer (Doc. 270) to that petition and an accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Doc. 271. On April 19, 24 25 26 27 2004, petitioner filed his Traverse. Doc. 284. On December 15, 2010, petitioner filed a motion for evidentiary hearing. Doc. 369. This Court granted that motion in an order filed on June 1, 2012 (Doc. 424), which was amended by 28 Stipulation and Order Re: Non Evidentiary Hearing Briefs 1 Roberts v. Chappell, Case No. 2:93-cv-00254-TLN-DAD 1 an order dated January 31, 2013. Doc. 466. The Amended Order granted a hearing on eight of 2 petitioner’s 58 Claims1: Claim 1, 7, 15, 16, 29, 30, 42 and 43. Doc 466 at 133. Following 3 depositions and a three day evidentiary hearing that concluded on January 15, 2014, the parties 4 agreed to a briefing schedule on these evidentiary hearing claims. Doc. 502. The court approved 5 6 7 that stipulated briefing schedule. Doc. 503. The present stipulation and order does not modify this Court’s previous protective orders 8 (Docs. 460 and 493), or otherwise permit any other use of the exhibits referenced in the court’s 9 order unsealing exhibits (Doc. 513). During a telephonic conference held on February 11, 2014, 10 the Court requested updated briefing on non-evidentiary hearing claims. The parties stipulate to 11 the following briefing schedule: Respondent shall file a Supplemental Brief in Support of 12 13 Answer on Non-Evidentiary Hearing Claims on or before November 13, 2014. Petitioner shall 14 file a Supplemental Brief in Support of Traverse on Non-Evidentiary Hearing Claims on or 15 before February 11, 2015. 16 Respectfully submitted, 17 HEATHER E. WILLIAMS Federal Defender 18 19 Dated: June 10, 2014 /s/ Brian Abbington BRIAN ABBINGTON Assistant Federal Defender Dated: June 10, 2014 23 /s/ Harry Simon HARRY SIMON Assistant Federal Defender 24 Attorneys for Petitioner 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 1 Although the Second Amended Petition lists Claims 1 through 59, Claim 33 was omitted from that petition. Stipulation and Order Re: Non Evidentiary Hearing Briefs 2 Roberts v. Chappell, Case No. 2:93-cv-00254-TLN-DAD 1 KAMALA HARRIS Attorney General of the State of California 2 3 Dated: June 9, 2014 4 /s/ Glenn R. Pruden GLENN R. PRUDEN Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 Attorneys for Respondent 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: June 16, 2014 10 11 12 Dad1.capital Robertsstip.re.non.evi.herg.claims.briefing 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stipulation and Order Re: Non Evidentiary Hearing Briefs 3 Roberts v. Chappell, Case No. 2:93-cv-00254-TLN-DAD

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?