Arias v. Calderon, et al

Filing 270

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/26/14 ordering within 10 days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall propose a due date for fling his section 2254(d) brief. In keeping with past practice the court expects petitioner's counsel to seek a stipulation from respondent's counsel with respect to the proposed extension of time. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PEDRO ARIAS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:99-cv-0627 WBS DAD
DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.
WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

15

ORDER

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner seeks to defer the date for submission of petitioner’s brief regarding the

18

application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) until second counsel has been appointed to replace petitioner’s

19

recently retired second counsel, Peter Giannini. (ECF No. 267.) Respondent objects to an open-

20

ended deferment of the due date for petitioner’s brief, but is willing to stipulate to an extension of

21

time to a known date. (ECF No. 269.)
Petitioner has failed to show good cause to relieve him of a due date for filing his brief. If

22
23

second counsel cannot be appointed for some time, the court expects that petitioner’s current

24

counsel will take over the responsibilities previously assigned to Mr. Giannini. That said, there is

25

no question that petitioner has shown good cause to extend the current April 15, 2014 filing date.
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, within ten days of the filed date of this order,

26
27

petitioner shall propose a due date for filing his § 2254(d) brief. In keeping with past practice, the

28

/////
1

1

court expects petitioner’s counsel to seek a stipulation from respondent’s counsel with respect to

2

the proposed extension of time.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2014

5
6
7
8
arias 2254d brf.eot5

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2