Ray v. Cate

Filing 37

REASSIGNMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/11/12. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

EDWARD V. RAY, JR.,

4

Petitioner,

5
6
7

No. C 10-01582 SI (PR)
Related Case No. C 11-01604 YGR (PR)

vs.

REASSIGNMENT ORDER

J. SCHOMIG, Warden,
Respondent.

/

8
On April 14, 2010, Petitioner Edward V. Ray, Jr. (Ray, Jr.), a state prisoner currently

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

incarcerated at the Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility (TCCF) in Tutwiler, Mississippi, filed

11

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in Case No. C 10-01582 SI (PR),

12

which is currently assigned to the Honorable Susan Illston. On April 15, 2011, Judge Illston granted

13

Respondent's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state remedies and gave Ray, Jr. various

14

options as to how to proceed. On June 21, 2011, Judge Illston granted Ray, Jr.'s motion to stay the

15

proceedings in order for him to exhaust the unexhausted claims, and she administratively closed that

16

case. Ray, Jr.'s case is still administratively closed. However, currently pending is Ray, Jr.'s motion

17

to reopen his case, lift the stay, and move forward with only the claims deemed exhausted by Judge

18

Illston in her April 15, 2011 Order (docket no. 30 in Case No. C 10-01582 SI (PR)). To date, Judge

19

Illston has not yet ruled on Ray, Jr.'s pending motion.

20

On April 1, 2011, Petitioner Edward V. Ray, III (Ray, III), who is Ray, Jr.'s son and is also a

21

state prisoner currently incarcerated at TCCF, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

22

28 U.S.C. § 2254 in Case No. C 11-01604 YGR (PR), which is currently assigned to the undersigned

23

judge. Originally, this case was assigned to the Honorable Claudia Wilken, who issued an Order to

24

Show Cause on August 16, 2011, directing Respondent to answer all the claims Ray, III raised. On

25

October 28, 2011, Ray, III moved for leave to file an amended petition, and he attached a proposed

26

amended petition (docket no. 9 in Case No. C 11-01604 YGR (PR)). His proposed amended petition

27

appears to raise the same eleven claims as the original one. It differs from the original one in that

28

include various supporting documents and an appendix of those documents. To date, neither Judge

1

Wilken nor the undersigned judge has ruled on Ray, III's motion for leave to file an amended

2

petition.

3
4

On November 29, 2011, Judge Illston issued a Related Case Order, in which she found both
Ray, Jr.'s and Ray, III's cases to be related.

5

On January 18, 2012, the undersigned judge issued a Reassignment Order, ordering Ray, III's

6

case to be assigned to her and directing the parties to file case management statements. There was

7

no reassignment order filed in Ray, Jr.'s case, possibly because that case had been administratively

8

closed.

9

On February 9, 2012, Respondent filed a case management statement in Ray, III's case. In

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

the case management statement, Respondent expresses confusion as to which judge is handling Ray,

11

Jr.'s case and states that there is overlap in the two cases, as follows:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

At least some of the claims raised by Ray, III, overlap with those raised by Ray, Jr.
They include: (1) Ray III's claim #2 (speedy trial), corresponding to Ray Jr.'s claim
#3; (2) Ray III's claim #5 (Brady1 violation), corresponding to Ray Jr.'s, claim #5;
and (3) Ray III's claim #7 (challenging modified CALCRIM 3515), corresponding
to Ray Jr.'s, claim #11. There may be overlap in other claims as well. Since 12
claims from Ray Jr. remain, and Ray III has raised 11, the identified three-issue
overlap means that the cases together raise between 12 and 20 claims.
(CMC Statement in Case No. C 11-01604 YGR (PR) at 3-4 (footnote added).)
On February 21, 2012, Ray, III filed his case management statement, in which he also
expresses confusion as to the which judge is handling his case and Ray, Jr.'s case.
On March 7, 2012, Respondent filed a "Motion to Dismiss Petition as Untimely or in the

20

Alternative To Dismiss All But Two Claims As Procedurally Defaulted" in Ray, III's case (docket

21

no. 32 in Case No. C 11-01604 YGR (PR)). Ray, III filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

22

He has also filed a motion to strike the motion to dismiss as well as various other motions (docket

23

nos. 7, 16, 22, 29, 34 in Case No. C 11-01604 YGR (PR)), all of which have not yet been ruled on.

24

Because Ray, Jr.'s case (Case No. C 10-01582 SI (PR)) has previously been related to Ray,

25

III's case (Case No. C 11-01604 YGR (PR)), these related cases should be assigned to the same

26

judge pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-12. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is hereby

27

directed to reassign Ray, Jr's case (Case No. C 10-01582 SI (PR)) to the undersigned judge.

28
1

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

The undersigned judge will rule on the pending motions in these related cases in a separate
written Order and only after the reassignment takes place.
The Clerk shall file this Order in both cases, Case Nos. C 10-01582 SI (PR) and C 11-01604
YGR (PR), and shall send a copy of it to each of the parties in both cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

April 11, 2012
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\YGR\HC.10\Ray,Jr.1582.ReassignRelated.wpd

3