Marks v. Martel

Filing 36

ORDER FOLLOWING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 34 Proposed Order filed by Kevin Chappelle. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 11/28/12. (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
DELANEY GERAL MARKS,

Case No. CV 11-2458 LHK

12
Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE
13
v.

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOLLOWING
FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

14
15

KEVIN CHAPPELL, as Acting Warden,

16

Respondent.

17
This matter came on for further Case Management Conference (“CMC”), conducted

18
19

telephonically, on November 21, 2012 at 11:00 a.m., before the above-entitled Court, the

20

Honorable Lucy H. Koh, presiding. Petitioner Delaney Geral Marks was represented by his

21

appointed counsel of record, the California Habeas Corpus Resource Center, appearing

22

specifically through Gary D. Sowards. Respondent Kevin Chappell, as Acting Warden of San

23

Quentin State Prison, was represented by his counsel of record, the California Attorney General,

24

appearing specifically through Deputy Attorney General Sharon Wooden.
Pursuant to an order filed November 14, 2012 (ECF No. 31) the parties were instructed to

25
26

meet and confer and thereafter file a proposed litigation schedule, as well as a joint statement

27

regarding any other issues they wished the Court to address. On November 14, 2012, the parties

28

filed the Parties’ Joint Statement of Issues and Proposed Litigation Schedule for Further Case
-

1
[Proposed] Order – Marks v. Chappell, Acting Warden (CV 11-2458 LHK)

1

Management Conference. (“Proposed Schedule,” ECF No. 32.) The parties agreed that the

2

applicability and adequacy of any state procedural bar may be litigated in the context of the

3

motion(s) for summary judgment or evidentiary hearing, and proposed a litigation schedule to

4

resolve the claims presented. (ECF No. 32, at 2-3.)

5
6

Based upon the parties’ Proposed Schedule, counsel’s responses to the Court’s questions at
the CMC, and GOOD CAUSE appearing, the Court adopts the following litigation schedule:

7
8

1.

file cross-motions for summary judgment as to Claims Two, Three and Five in the petition;

9
10

2.

Opposition to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment shall be filed within

sixty (60) days from the date of the filing of the summary judgment motions;

11
12

Within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the filing of this order, the parties will

3.

Replies, if any, may be filed within forty-five (45) days from the date the parties’

oppositions are filed;

13

4.

If the Court’s disposition of the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment does

14

not resolve the petition, Petitioner shall file any motion for evidentiary hearing within one

15

hundred and twenty (120) days of the Court’s final disposition of the summary judgment motions;

16

5.

In the event the Court grants an evidentiary hearing on any claims in the petition, the

17

parties shall meet and confer and propose to the Clerk a date, which is a Wednesday afternoon

18

within forty-five (45) days from the filing of the order granting an evidentiary hearing, upon

19

which they request the Court to conduct a further Case Management Conference;

20

6.

No later than seven (7) days prior to the further Case Management Conference, the

21

parties, through counsel, shall file a joint statement regarding the parties’ position as to a

22

proposed discovery schedule, proposed date for the evidentiary hearing, and other pleadings or

23

motions necessary to resolve the petition.

24
25

11/28/12
Dated: ___________________________

__________________________
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh

26
27
28
-

2
[Proposed] Order – Marks v. Chappell, Acting Warden (CV 11-2458 LHK)