Espinoza v. Ornoski

Filing 266

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/28/16 ORDERING that by October 28, 2016, petitioner shall file a statement describing the status of these proceedings and proposing a plan for going forward. In particular, petitioner shall address: (a) whether he seeks to file additional or substitute briefs on the 2006 motion for an evidentiary hearing and/or the 2011 Pinholster briefing; and (b) whether existing briefing adequately addresses issues arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). To the extent petitioner proposes new briefing, he shall explain specifically what he wishes to do and why those actions are justified. Within 45 days of the filed date of petitioners statement, respondent shall file a responsive statement. After receiving respondents statement, the court will determine whether to hold a status conference.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTONIO ESPINOZA,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,

No. 2:94-cv-1665 JAM KJN (TEMP)
DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.
WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

ORDER

Respondent.

16
17

On April 28, 2016, the undersigned held a status conference. Assistant Federal Defenders

18

Lissa Gardner and Kelly Culshaw appeared for petitioner. Deputy Attorneys General Kenneth

19

Sokoler and Sean McCoy appeared for respondent. Counsel agreed that there are two outstanding

20

issues in this case. In 2006, petitioner filed an amended motion for an evidentiary hearing, which

21

was argued in 2007. In 2011 and 2012, the parties filed briefs addressing the “impact of Cullen v.

22

Pinholster . . . on these proceedings and, in particular, on petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary

23

hearing.” (ECF No. 238.) However, petitioner’s counsel informed the court that they are unable

24

to address the status of these proceedings with any more specificity because they have not yet had

25

an opportunity to review all of the files from predecessor counsel. This difficulty is

26

understandable. According to petitioner’s counsel, in the approximately two months since they

27

were appointed, they have collected most, but not all, of the extensive paper files, amounting to

28

60 boxes of records, from predecessor counsel.
1

1

Petitioner’s counsel requested an additional six months to review the records from

2

predecessor counsel and the state and federal court proceedings. The court finds good cause for

3

this additional time.

4

Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

5

1.

By October 28, 2016, petitioner shall file a statement describing the status of these

6

proceedings and proposing a plan for going forward. In particular, petitioner shall

7

address: (a) whether he seeks to file additional or substitute briefs on the 2006 motion

8

for an evidentiary hearing and/or the 2011 Pinholster briefing; and (b) whether

9

existing briefing adequately addresses issues arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). To

10

the extent petitioner proposes new briefing, he shall explain specifically what he

11

wishes to do and why those actions are justified.

12
13
14
15
16

2. Within 45 days of the filed date of petitioner’s statement, respondent shall file a
responsive statement.
3. After receiving respondent’s statement, the court will determine whether to hold a
status conference.
Dated: April 28, 2016

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Espinoza sts.or

26
27
28
2