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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?