Maury v. Martel

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 05/10/12 ordering by 06/11/12, respondent shall lodge the state court record as described in Local Rule 191(h)(1). By 10/24/12, petitioner shall file a petition. In addition to meeting the requireme nts of Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, petitioner shall allege how each claim meets the requirements of 28 USC 2254(d). Prior to 12/10/12, counsel shall meet and confer about a schedule for filing the answer or other responsive ple ading, and any traverse. The court expects respondent's counsel to have reviewed the petition fully prior to meeting with petitioner's counsel. On 12/13/12 at 10:00 in courtroom 27 the undersigned will hold a case management conference. Petitioner's counsel informed the court that he consents to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. As directed in the court's 04/20/12 order, respondent's counsel shall consent to or decline consenting to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by 05/24/12 2 . (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

ROBERT EDWARD MAURY,

11

Petitioner,

12
13

No. CIV S-12-1043 WBS DAD

vs.

DEATH PENALTY CASE

WARDEN, San Quentin State
Prison

14
15

Respondent.

16

ORDER
/

17

On May 8, 2012, the undersigned held a case management conference. Attorneys

18

Michael Laurence and Kevin Bringuel appeared for petitioner. Deputy Attorney General Sean

19

McCoy appeared for respondent. After hearing the argument of counsel, and good cause

20

appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

21
22

1. By June 11, 2012, respondent shall lodge the state court record as described in
Local Rule 191(h)(1).

23

2. By October 24, 2012, petitioner shall file a petition. In addition to meeting the

24

requirements of Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, petitioner shall allege how

25

each claim meets the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

26

////
1

1

3. Prior to December 10, 2012, counsel shall meet and confer about a schedule

2

for filing the answer or other responsive pleading, and any traverse. The court expects

3

respondent’s counsel to have reviewed the petition fully prior to meeting with petitioner’s

4

counsel. On December 13, 2012 at 10:00 in courtroom # 27, the undersigned will hold a case

5

management conference.

6

4. Petitioner’s counsel informed the court that he consents to the jurisdiction of a

7

magistrate judge. As directed in the court’s April 20, 2012 order, respondent’s counsel shall

8

consent to or decline consenting to U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by May 24, 2012. (Dkt.

9

No. 2.)

10

DATED: May 10, 2012.

11
12
13
14
15

maury cmc1.or

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2