Wilridge v. Marshall

Filing 57

ORDER, Motions terminated: 56 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Evidentiary Hearing Date filed by Quinn Wilridge. Evidentiary Hearing set for 8/29/14 is continued to 9/3/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Susan Illston.. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on 5/9/14. (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Galia A. Phillips
Stanford Law School
Criminal Defense Clinic
State Bar No. 250551
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorney For Petitioner

7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

QUINN MALCOLM WILRIDGE,

v.

C 09-2236 SI (pr)
Petitioner, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING DATE FOR
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

JOHN MARSHALL, Warden,
Respondent.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING DATE FOR
EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Pablo Stewart, is on a pre-planned vacation on July 18, 2014, the
date on which this Court set the evidentiary hearing on equitable tolling. The parties therefore
jointly request that the Court set the evidentiary hearing on August 29, 2014 at 9:00am. The
parties also jointly request that the briefing schedule be modified as follows: Petitioner’s brief

27
28
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DATE FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

1

due on June 16, 2014; respondent’s brief due on July 14, 2014; petitioner’s reply brief due on

2

August 11, 2014.1

3
4

Dated: May 8, 2014

5
By: /s/ Galia Amram Phillips
GALIA A. PHILLIPS
Attorney for Petitioner
QUINN MALCOLM WILRIDGE

6
7
8
9

By: /s/ Jill Thayer
JILL THAYER
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney for Respondent
JOHN MARSHALL

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

[PROPOSED] ORDER

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the evidentiary hearing on equitable tolling is continued

September 3, 2014

to August 29, 2014 at 9:0am. Petitioner’s brief is due on June 16, 2014; respondent’s brief is due
on July 14, 2014; petitioner’s reply brief is due on August 11, 2014.
9

Dated: May ___, 2014

22
23

By: __________________________________
HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24
25
26
27
28

1

The length between the response and the reply brief is due to the fact that respondent
may not be able to turn over its expert report until after petitioner’s opening brief is due. If so,
petitioner will respond to the expert report in its reply brief.
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DATE FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING