Taylor v. Brown, et al

Filing 245

ORDER Re Briefing Schedule Re Cause & Prejudice. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/10/2014. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

FREDDIE LEE TAYLOR,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Petitioner,

No. C-92-1627 EMC
DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of California
State Prison at San Quentin,

ORDER RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE
CAUSE & PREJUDICE

12
13

Respondent.
___________________________________/

14
15

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ proposed briefing schedule, and hereby ORDERS the

16

following briefing schedule regarding cause and prejudice. Petitioner’s opening brief regarding

17

cause and prejudice and/or fundamental miscarriage of justice issues is due on or before September

18

30, 2014. Respondent’s opposition is due on or before November 14, 2014. Any reply brief is due

19

on or before December 19, 2014. The parties are strongly encouraged to adhere to the page limits

20

set by Local Rule 7.4 (b), absent a significant showing that oversize briefs are necessary. Any

21

request to file an oversize brief must be filed at least seven days before the brief in question is due.

22

The parties did not, as requested by the Court, submit a proposed schedule for the briefing of

23

petitioner’s record-based claims. Instead, the parties state that the Second Amended Petition is “not

24

fully ripe”, and that issues regarding discovery and an evidentiary hearing should be addressed after

25

the Court renders a decision regarding cause and prejudice. The Court does not agree with this

26

approach, and the parties have not demonstrated why the petition is not ripe, and why record-based

27

claims cannot be considered prior to requests for discovery and/or evidentiary hearing. Accordingly,

28

1

within fourteen days of the date of this Order, the parties should submit a joint statement addressing

2

ripeness and a proposed plan for addressing record-based claims.1

3
4

The CMC scheduled for June 12, 2014 is VACATED. The Court will set a future CMC date
if necessary.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: June 10, 2014

9

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

1

The parties state that grouping of record-based claims for briefing is not possible because of
the overlapping nature of the claims. Claims that overlap should be grouped together for briefing
purposes; the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Petition and finds that the parties have not
demonstrated that grouping of claims – a common procedure in capital habeas cases – is not
possible in this case.

2