Morales v. Tilton

Filing 534

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO VACATE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/5/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2012)

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

Michael Angelo MORALES et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

DEATH-PENALTY CASE
v.
Matthew CATE, Secretary of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
et al.,

PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22
23

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO VACATE
[Doc. No. 533]

Defendants.

17
18

Case Number 3-6-cv-219-RS-HRL
Case Number 3-6-cv-926-RS-HRL

Case Number 3-6-cv-1793-RS-HRL
DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO VACATE

v.
Matthew CATE, Secretary of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
et al.,

[motion not on this action’s docket]

Defendants.

24
25

On November 3, 2011, the Court entered a scheduling order in the present actions, which

26

involve challenges to the constitutionality of the State of California’s protocol for executions by

27

lethal injection; the schedule includes a discovery cut-off date of August 15, 2012. (Morales I,

28

Doc. No. 531; Morales II, Doc. No. 74; Pac. News Serv., Doc. No. 124.) Subsequently, in

Case Nos. 3-6-cv-219-RS-HRL, 3-6-cv-926-RS-HRL, & 3-6-cv-1793-RS-HRL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE
(DPSAGOK)

1

related state-court litigation, the Marin Superior Court, on state-law grounds, enjoined

2

executions pursuant to that protocol; the state court entered judgment in that case on February

3

23, 2012. Sims v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. CIV 1004019 (Cal. Super. Ct. Marin Cnty.

4

filed Aug. 2, 2010).

5

Plaintiffs move the Court to vacate the current scheduling order, and to direct the parties

6

to submit a new proposed schedule “when viable lethal injection regulations are in place.”

7

(Morales I, Doc. No. 533 at 2.) Defendants take no position on the motion. (Id.)

8

It is unclear whether the Sims litigation has concluded and how precisely that case will

9

affect the present actions.1 Plaintiffs’ motion therefore appears to be premature. In addition, the

10

Court is concerned that the absence of a schedule may result in undue and unnecessary delay in

11

the resolution of the instant actions. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.

12

At the same time, the Court does not intend for the parties to engage in discovery that

13

may become moot and therefore wasteful. Accordingly, the Court is presently staying discovery

14

in these actions. The parties shall file a joint statement containing a proposed schedule or

15

schedules by July 16, 2012.

16

It is so ordered.

17
18
19

DATED: April 5, 2012

__________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

It is similarly unclear how another related action, this one in Federal District Court in the
District of Columbia, may affect the present actions. California’s lethal-injection protocol requires the
use of sodium thiopental, yet it appears that that court has ordered that the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation must turn over its supply of sodium thiopental to the FDA. Beaty v. FDA,
No. 1-11-cv-289-RJL, slip op. at 2 (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2012) (Order, Doc. No. 24); see id. (Mem. Op., Doc.
No. 23).

2
Case Nos. 3-6-cv-219-RS-HRL, 3-6-cv-926-RS-HRL, & 3-6-cv-1793-RS-HRL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO VACATE
(DPSAGOK)