Smith v. Wong

Filing 78

SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 27, 2014. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

Gregory Calvin SMITH,

Case Number CV 04-3436 JSW
Petitioner,

13

DEATH-PENALTY CASE
SCHEDULING ORDER

14

v.

15

Kevin CHAPPELL,
Warden, San Quentin State Prison,

16

Respondent.

17
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ Joint Statement Regarding Case Management, filed

18
19

on January 31, 2014. The Statement states that petitioner intends to appeal the Court’s order

20

denying his second request for a stay and subsequent motion for reconsideration, and thereafter

21

will file a motion for evidentiary hearing. Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on February 15,

22

2014.

23
24
25
26
27
28

In the interest of efficiency and in light of Pinholster v. Cullen, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011),
the Court directs the parties to proceed as follows instead:
A) If petitioner’s appeal is successful, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the
Ninth Circuit’s ruling on petitioner’s appeal.
B) If petitioner’s appeal fails, then within 30 days of its resolution, the parties shall meet
and confer to identify claims they agree may be resolved based on the record before the Court.

1

Within fifteen days of meeting and conferring, the parties shall file a joint statement outlining a

2

litigation schedule for briefing the merits of record-based claims. After receipt and review of the

3

joint statement, the Court shall issue a scheduling order. A schedule for resolving remaining

4

claims will be established in a subsequent order.

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
DATED: March 27, 2014
7

__________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2