Dennis v. Ayers

Filing 273

ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS REGARDING SCHEDULING (addressing 264 , 266 , 270 , 271 ). Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/10/2012. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2012)

1

**E-Filed 2/10/2012**

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

William Michael DENNIS,
Petitioner,

13
v.

14
15

Kevin CHAPPELLE,1 Warden of San Quentin
State Prison,

16

Respondent.

Case Number 5-98-cv-21027-JF
DEATH-PENALTY CASE
ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS
REGARDING SCHEDULING

[Docs Nos. 264, 266 & 270–71]

17
18

Four motions regarding scheduling are pending in the present action. Good cause

19

therefor appearing, Petitioner’s two unopposed motions for extensions of time to file his

20

opposition to Respondent’s motion for reconsideration, (Docs. Nos. 264 & 266), are granted

21

nunc pro tunc, and Petitioner’s two motions to continue time to comply with scheduling order,

22

(Docs. Nos. 270–71), are granted in part and denied in part as follows.

23

The scheduling order of May 2, 2011, (Doc. No. 262), is vacated.

24

Petitioner may file a supplemental opposition to the motion for reconsideration on or

25

before March 15, 2012. (See Doc. No. 272 at 2–3 n.2.) Respondent may file a supplemental

26
27
28

1

Kevin Chappelle is substituted automatically as the named Respondent pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Case No. 5-98-cv-21027-JF
ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS REGARDING SCHEDULING
(DPSAGOK)

1

reply on or before April 23, 2012. In addition to any other points the parties wish to address in

2

these briefs, the Court is interested in the parties’ views as to the relevance of Gonzalez v. Wong,

3

— F.3d —, No. 08-99025, 2011 WL 6061514 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2011).

4

Unless otherwise ordered, Respondent’s motion for reconsideration will be deemed

5

resubmitted upon receipt of Respondent’s supplemental reply or the expiration of time within

6

which to file a supplemental reply.

7

Within thirty days after the Court issues an order disposing of the motion for

8

reconsideration, the parties shall file a joint statement including a proposed schedule for, inter

9

alia, any necessary discovery and disclosures as contemplated in paragraphs 5–7 of the May 2,

10

2011, scheduling order, as well as proposed dates for an evidentiary hearing as contemplated in

11

paragraph 8 of that order in the event that the Court reaffirms its earlier determination that

12

Petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

DATED: February 10, 2012

_______________________________
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No. 5-98-cv-21027-JF
ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS REGARDING SCHEDULING
(DPSAGOK)