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)

Download PDF
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)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?