Carpenter v. Brown, et al

Filing 144

ORDER RE: PROPOSED LITIGATION SCHEDULE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 27, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2010)

1 MICHAEL M. CRAIN, State Bar No. 45083 P. O. Box 3730 2 Santa Monica, California 90408 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] 4 ROBERT D. BACON, State Bar No. 73297 5 484 Lake Park Avenue, PMB 110 Oakland, California 94610 6 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] 8 Attorneys for Petitioner 9 EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr. Attorney General of the State of California 10 JAMES WILLIAM BILDERBACK II, State Bar No. 161306 STEPHANIE C. BRENAN, State Bar No. 183790 11 Deputy Attorneys General 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 12 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] 14 STEVEN T. OETTING, State Bar No. 142868 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 15 P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, California 92186 16 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] E-mail: [e-mail] 18 Attorneys for Respondent 19 20 21 22 DAVID J. CARPENTER, 23 24 25 26 27 28
Proposed Litigation Schedule No. C 98-2444 MMC & C 00-3706 MMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) VINCENT CULLEN, Acting Warden ) of San Quentin State Prison, ) ) Respondent. ) ___________________________________ )

No. C 98-2444 MMC and No. C 00-3706 MMC DEATH PENALTY CASES PROPOSED LITIGATION SCHEDULE and [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

1

Pursuant to the order of November 24, 2009 (98-2444 Doc. 210; 00-3706 Doc. 141),

2 counsel for petitioner and respondent conferred by telephone on December 11, 2009, and have agreed 3 upon the following: 4 1. For purposes of litigation, the claims in No. 98-2444 will be divided into nine groups

5 as set forth in Appendix A and the claims in No.00-3706 will be divided into nine groups as set forth 6 in Appendix B. The groups of claims will be briefed and presented to the Court for decision in the 7 order indicated, beginning with group 1. Claims in the same numbered group in No. 98-2444 and No. 8 00-3706 will be presented to the Court for decision at approximately the same time, so the Court can 9 consider them together. 10 2. With respect to claims in group 1 in No. 98-2444, petitioner will file a motion for

11 summary judgment, motion for judgment on the pleadings, brief on the merits, or other appropriate 12 document within 180 days after issuance of the Court's forthcoming scheduling order. With respect 13 to the claims in group 1 in No. 00-3706, petitioner will file a similar document within 14 days after 14 filing the motion or brief in No. 98-2444. 15 3. Respondent's responsive brief on group 1 in each case will be due 60 days after peti-

16 tioner's motion or brief is filed. Petitioner's reply on group 1 in each case will be due within 30 days 17 after respondent's responsive brief is filed. The claims in group 1 will then be ripe for decision by the 18 Court, with or without oral argument as the Court prefers. 19 4. The same schedule will then be followed for the claims in group 2, with petitioner's

20 motion or opening brief in No. 98-2444 due 180 days after the later of his two replies on group 1 claims 21 is filed. Petitioner's motion or opening brief on group 2 claims in No. 00-3706 will be due 14 days 22 later, and so forth. 23 24 5. The same schedule will then be followed for the claims in group 3. 6. Following the Court's decision on the claims in group 3 in both cases, counsel will

25 meet and confer and present to the Court a proposed schedule for litigation of the remaining groups of 26 claims. This will include a schedule for filing motions for evidentiary hearing and responses thereto, 27 and a schedule for litigating questions of cause and prejudice with respect to claims the Court has 28 previously found to be procedurally defaulted.
Proposed Litigation Schedule No. C 98-2444 MMC & C 00-3706 MMC

2

1 2 Dated: December 26, 2009 3 4 Dated: January 19, 2010 5 6 Dated: January 6, 2010 7 8 9 Dated: January 6, 2010 10 11 Dated: January 15, 2010 12 13 14 15 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 18 19 20 Pursuant to section X.B. of General Order No. 45, Robert D. Bacon, counsel for the peti21 tioner, certifies that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other 22 signatories. 23 /s/ Robert D. Bacon 24 25 26 27 28
Proposed Litigation Schedule No. C 98-2444 MMC & C 00-3706 MMC

/s/ Michael M. Crain MICHAEL M. CRAIN, Counsel for Petitioner /s/ Robert D. Bacon ROBERT D. BACON, Counsel for Petitioner

/s/ James William Bilderback II JAMES WILLIAM BILDERBACK II, Counsel for Respondent in No. 98-2444 /s/ Stephanie C. Brenan STEPHANIE C. BRENAN, Counsel for Respondent in No. 98-2444 /s/ Steven T. Oetting STEVEN T. OETTING, Counsel for Respondent in No. 00-3706

January 27 Signed ________________, 2010 _____________________________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3