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)
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?