Jackson v. Warden of CSP-Solano

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/29/16 ORDERING that within thirty days of this order, the parties shall file a joint status report. Upon receipt of the joint status report, the court will determine whether and when a status conference is necessary. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RACARDO JACKSON,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2268-MCE-EFB (TEMP) P

v.

ORDER

WARDEN OF CALIFORNIA STATE
PRISON, SOLANO,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of

18
19

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
In this case, petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction for second-degree murder with

20
21

a firearm enhancement entered on August 26, 2010, by the Solano County Superior Court.

22

According to the form petition, the superior court sentenced petitioner to 55 years to life in state

23

prison. In his petition, petitioner claims that his constitutional rights were violated at his trial as a

24

result of: (1) juror misconduct; (2) prejudicial exclusion of the victim’s prior violence; (3)

25

prejudicial admission of Officer Shaffer’s testimony; (4) error under Doyle v. Ohio; (5)

26

prosecutorial misconduct; and (6) cumulative error under Chapman v. California. (Pet. &

27

Statement of Grounds/Brief in Support.)

28

/////
1

1

On September 17, 2015, the court granted Attorney Chan’s motion to withdraw as

2

petitioner’s counsel of record. On the following day, the court appointed the Federal Defender

3

for the Eastern District of California to represent petitioner. On October 9, 2015, the court

4

substituted Attorney Michael Bigelow as appointed counsel for petitioner in place of the Federal

5

Defender. At this time, the court will order a joint status report in the case.

6
7

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days of this
order, the parties shall file a joint status report, which addresses the following matters:

8

a. Whether petitioner will stand on the existing petition.

9

b. Whether the parties anticipate filing any motions.

10

c. Whether the parties anticipate a need to conduct discovery.

11

d. Whether the parties anticipate a need for an evidentiary hearing.

12

Upon receipt of the joint status report, the court will determine whether and when a status

13

conference is necessary.

14

DATED: April 29, 2016.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2