Taylor v. Brown, et al

Filing 255

ORDER resetting CMC. Case Management Statement due by 3/19/2015. Further Case Management Conference reset for 3/26/2015 10:30 AM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/4/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2015)

Case3:92-cv-01627-EMC Document254 Filed03/02/15 Page1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Nanci L. Clarence (State Bar No. 122286)
Gina Moon (State Bar No. 257721)
CLARENCE DYER & COHEN LLP
899 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Douglas R. Young (State Bar No. 073248)
Kelly A. Woodruff (State Bar No. 160235)
Kelly Matayoshi (State Bar No. 284596)
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Petitioner
FREDDIE LEE TAYLOR
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
RONALD S. MATTHIAS
Senior Assistant Attorney General
ALICE B. LUSTRE
Deputy Attorney General
SHARON WOODEN (State Bar No. 108709)
Deputy Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17
Attorneys for Respondent
18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21
22

FREDDIE LEE TAYLOR,
Petitioner,

23
24
25

Case No. C-92-1627 EMC
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
ORDER RESETTING CMC TO 3/26/15

vs.
RON DAVIS, Acting Warden of California
State Prison at San Quentin,

Date: March 10, 2015
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Court: The Honorable Edward M. Chen

26
Respondent.
27
28
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

CASE NO. C-92-1627 EMC

Case3:92-cv-01627-EMC Document254 Filed03/02/15 Page2 of 4

1

Pursuant to Habeas Corpus Local Rule 2254-29(f), Petitioner Freddie Lee Taylor

2

(“Taylor”) and Respondent Ron Davis (“Respondent”), acting through their counsel, have met

3

and conferred and hereby submit this Joint Case Management Conference Statement.

4

I.

5

The Court has ruled that Taylor’s motion regarding cause and prejudice and/or

STATUS OF CLAIMS RESPONDENT IDENTIFIES AS PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTED.

6

miscarriage of justice with respect to Claim 6 may be renewed at the time that the Court

7

resolves Claims 19 and 20, as the issues relevant to the merits of Claims 19 and 20 are

8

inextricably intertwined with Taylor’s cause and prejudice/miscarriage of justice motion

9

regarding Claim 6 (Dkt. No. 252). Otherwise, all procedural default issues in this case have

10

been resolved.

11

II.

12

On June 10, 2014, the Court issued an order denying the parties’ joint request to defer

SCHEDULING OF OTHER PLEADINGS, MOTIONS, AND PROCEEDINGS.

13

setting a schedule and ordered the parties to “submit a joint statement addressing ripeness and a

14

proposed plan for addressing record-based claims,” including proposed groupings of record-

15

based claims (Dkt. No. 245). Accordingly, on June 24, 2014, the parties submitted a joint filing

16

presenting their respective proposals for resolution of the claims in this case (Dkt. No. 247).

17

The Court, however, did not rule on the parties’ proposals.

18

In advance of the case management conference scheduled for February 26, 2015, the

19

parties met and conferred and submitted a joint case management conference statement that

20

included the parties’ respective scheduling proposals (Dkt. No. 251). On February 25, 2015, the

21

case management conference was continued to March 10, 2015. Accordingly, the parties again

22

met and conferred and now jointly propose the following schedule:1

23

//

24

//

25

//

26
27
28

1

The parties will be prepared to address at the CMC the impact Jones v. Chappell, Case No. 14-5673 (9th Cir.
2014) has on Taylor’s Second Amended Petition. Taylor reserves the right to file a motion to stay the instant
proceedings pending the resolution of Jones v. Chappell. Respondent would oppose any such motion for stay.
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

-2-

CASE NO. C-92-1627 EMC

Case3:92-cv-01627-EMC Document254 Filed03/02/15 Page3 of 4

1

A. Merits Briefing of Group 1 Record-Based2 Claims

2

The parties propose Taylor’s motion for summary judgment, motion for judgment on the

3

pleadings, brief on the merits, or other appropriate brief presenting Claims 12.C, 12.D, 16, and 18

4

for resolution by the Court be due on June 17, 2015. The parties propose the opposition brief by

5

Respondent be due on August 17, 2015 and any reply by Taylor be due on September 16, 2015.

6

B. Merits Briefing of Group 2 Record-Based Claims

7

The parties propose Taylor’s motion for summary judgment, motion for judgment on the

8

pleadings, brief on the merits, or other appropriate brief presenting Claims 3.A, 10-11, 15, and 17

9

for resolution by the Court be due on March 14, 2016. The parties propose the opposition brief

10

by Respondent be due on May 13, 2016 and any reply by Taylor be due on June 13, 2016.

11

C. Merits Briefing on Extra-Record Based Claims

12

Taylor contends that Claims 1-2, 3.B, 3.C, 4-5, 6-9, 12.A, 12.B, 12.E, 13-14, 19-20 are

13

extra-record based.3 If Taylor prevails on any of his record-based claims, no briefing on these

14

extra-record based claims will be necessary. Accordingly, to preserve judicial, state, and CJA

15

resources, the parties respectfully propose that the Court set a further case management

16

conference after resolution of the record-based claims to set a litigation schedule for the extra-

17

record based claims, including any motion by Taylor for discovery and an evidentiary hearing.

18

III.

19

Counsel for Respondent are unavailable on March 10, 2015, and respectfully request that

REQUEST TO CHANGE HEARING DATE.

20

the hearing be reset to the first available hearing date thereafter. Taylor’s counsel has no

21

objection.

22
23
24
25
26

2

Taylor contends that the claims in this case can be divided into record-based claims and extra-record based
claims. Respondent contends that all claims in this case are record-based claims. However, in the interest of
compromise, Respondent stipulates to the briefing schedule proposed herein. Respondent intends to oppose any
motion for evidentiary hearing or any other effort to expand the record.
3

27
28

Taylor previously identified Claim 6 as a “record-based” claim. However, since the Court has now specified that
Taylor may renew his cause and prejudice motion with respect to Claim 6 when Claims 19 and 20 are considered,
Taylor now classifies Claim 6 as “extra-record” based since the procedural default issues relating to that claim cannot
be resolved until Claims 19 and 20, which are extra-record based, are resolved.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

-3-

CASE NO. C-92-1627 EMC

Case3:92-cv-01627-EMC Document254 Filed03/02/15 Page4 of 4

1
2

Respectfully Submitted,
DATED: March 2, 2015.

CLARENCE DYER & COHEN LLP

3
4

By: /s/ Gina Moon
Nanci L. Clarence
Gina Moon
Attorneys for Petitioner

5
6
DATED: March 2, 2015.

FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP

7
8
By: /s/ Kelly A. Woodruff
Douglas R. Young
Kelly A. Woodruff
Kelly Matayoshi
Attorneys for Petitioner

9
10
11
DATED: March 2, 2015.

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
RONALD D. MATTHIAS
Senior Assistant Attorney General

12
13
14
15

By: /s/ Sharon Wooden
SHARON WOODEN
ALICE B. LUSTRE
Deputy Attorney Generals
Attorneys for Respondent

16
17
18
19
20

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
Pursuant to General Order No. 45, I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this

21

document has been obtained from the signatories indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/)

22

within this e-filed document.

23

NO

R NIA

ER
O ORD D
IT IS S
IFIE
S MOD
A

. Chen

RT

H

ER

FO

dward M

Judge E

-4-

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

LI

28

RT
U
O

27

N

/s/ Gina Moon
Gina Moon

Attorneys for Petitioner
FREDDIE LEE TAYLOR

A

26

S

25

UNIT
ED

24

By:

IT IS SO ORDERED that the CMC
is reset from 3/10/15 to 3/26/15
at 10:30 a.m. An updated joint CMC
statement shall be filed by 3/19/15.
____________________________S DISTRIC
TC
TE
Edward M. Chen
TA
U.S. District Judge
ED

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

CASE NO. C-92-1627 EMC