Lewis v. Woodford
Petitioner: Milton Lewis
Respondent: Jeanne S. Woodford
Case Number: 2:2002cv00013
Filed: January 26, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
Presiding Judge: Gregory G. Hollows
Presiding Judge: Frank C. Damrell
Nature of Suit: Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 13, 2024 Opinion or Order Filing 219 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 02/12/24 DIRECTING the parties to file, within 21 days, a notice addressing their interest in participating in a settlement conference. (Licea Chavez, V)
July 16, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 197 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/15/2019 ORDERING, within 30 days, counsel for petitioner shall submit the proposed budgeting documentation under seal and in compliance with the procedures detailed in the "Appendix" section attached to this order. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order upon Kurt Heiser, CJA Administrator, Office of the Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California. (cc: Kurt Heiser) (Yin, K)
May 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 196 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/09/19 ORDERING that respondent shall file an answer addressing the merits of the claims identified above no later than August 30, 2019. Additionally, petitioner shall file any reply to respondents answer no later than December 2, 2019. Only after all merits briefing is filed will the court resume its review and consideration of all claims now pending before it. (Plummer, M)
March 6, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 194 ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/5/18 ADOPTING 193 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Petitioner is directed to file a motion to amend the petition, through counsel, if there are new bases on which he wishes to challenge his conviction or sentence. (Kaminski, H)
September 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 193 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 9/21/2017 RECOMMENDING the petition filed as Case No. 2:17-cv-1112 be dismissed and petitioner be directed to file a motion to amend the petition in the earlier action, 2:02-cv-0013-TLN-EFB, if there are new bases on which he wishes to challenge his conviction or sentence. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley; Objections to F&R due by within 14 days. (Yin, K)
June 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 188 ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/21/2017 ORDERING Petitioner, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, to show cause why the instant petition should not be dismissed and he be directed to consult with his existing counsel in Case No. 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-EFB regarding any additional claims he wishes to present to this court regarding his conviction and sentence. (Henshaw, R) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
July 5, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 178 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/1/11 GRANTING the parties stipulation to extend the briefing schedule as follows:Petitioner's brief will be due on 7/12/11; Respondent's reply brief will be due on 7/22/11. (Becknal, R)
June 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 175 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 6/7/11 ORDERING the previously ordered evidentiary hearing (September 26, 2011) is canceled without prejudice to its re-institution depending on the (d)(1) initial determinations by the undersign ed. No discovery shall take place without further order of the court. Supplemental briefing shall be submitted, if desired, on the schedule set forth by the undersigned. Accordingly, petitioner shall submit whatever briefing on the issues heretofore scheduled for evidentiary hearing, supplemental to that provided previously for resolution of the evidentiary hearing motion, that petitioner desires to file w/in 30 days from the filed date of this order. Respondent shall file a response/opposition 30 days after service of petitioner's supplemental briefing. No reply is necessary. The court will expeditiously make (d)(1) determinations on the issues previously scheduled for evidentiary hearing, and will then order what further proceedings are appropriate. If petitioner prevails on a claim(s), the undersigned will permit further factual development as appropriate. (Matson, R)
June 1, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 174 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 06/01/11 ordering the expenses approved in the 05/27/11 vouchers should not be counted against the submitted budget. (Plummer, M)
May 26, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 173 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 05/25/11 granting 171 Motion. Respondent shall have 20 days from the filing of this order within which to file a pleading to brief the effects of Walker v. Martin_U.S._ 131 S. Ct 1120 (2011) o n the claims in the First Amended Petition. Petitioner shall have 20 days from the filing of respondent's pleading within which to file his own pleading. Respondent shall have 10 days from the filing of petitioner's pleading within which to file a reply. (Plummer, M)
April 19, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 168 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 04/19/11 ordering the parties shall within 21 days of the filed date of this order, file concise simultaneous brief concerning Cullen v. Pinholster US, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011) invalidates this cour t's order for an evidentiary hearing, i.e. whether all issues on which an evidentiary hearing was granted were 28 USC 2254(d)(1) issues which should be reviewed solely on the factual record set forth in state court either during trial, direct re view, or in state habeas proceedings. The parties shall also brief whether respondent is bound by Cullen or whether Cullen only applies to potential grants of a petition as opposed to potential denials. If respondent argues that respondent is not bound by Cullen, respondent shall indicate whether respondent desires an evidentiary hearing, and on what issues.(Plummer, M)
November 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 161 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/12/2010 ORDERING that petitioner and respondent shall meet and confer concerning the precise date in July 2011 for the evidentiary hearing, and shall communicate such with the courtroom clerk. The parties shall agree to a discovery cutoff date on or about 5/30/2011, and a pre-hearing conference date in mid-June 2011. Parties agreement shall be communicated to the court no later than 11/22/2010. A final scheduling order will issue. (Waggoner, D)
November 8, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 160 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/08/10 ordering that an evidentiary hearing is ordered on claims 10,11,12,13,14,15(b)(involuntary confession only-see #'s 10,11,12), 16(a),(c),(g) (see #13), (i) (penalty phase only), 27 (all sub-claims). All other claims, or parts of claims, for which a motion for evidentiary hearing was made are denied. (see order for further details).(Plummer, M)
October 27, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 158 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/26/10 ordering because the competency decision of this court along with a denial of the motion to stay is not final, and hence not appealable under the collateral order doctrine, the undersigned has jurisdiction to continue to adjudicate the evidentiary hearing motion. (Plummer, M)
October 5, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 155 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/5/2010 ORDERING Within 14 days of the filed date of this order, the parties shall file concurrent briefs informing the court of their position with respect to: (a) the jurisdiction of the Cour t of Appeal to review a denial of a motion to stay proceedings; (b) if an interlocutory appeal is appropriate, to what extent the district court is deprived of jurisdiction to continue on with the merits of the action preceding trial (evidentiary hearing) and the evidentiary hearing itself, considering that the issue on appeal (present competency to proceed) is unrelated to the merits of the habeas petition itself. (Reader, L)
September 2, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 153 ORDER ADOPTING 150 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. on 09/01/10 and ORDERING that petitioner's 128 (counsel's) motion (docket #128), in response to the court's inquiry, to have himself declared incompetent and to have these proceedings stayed is DENIED. (Benson, A.)
January 26, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 150 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/26/2010 RECOMMENDING that petitioner's counsels' 128 motion, in response to the court's inquiry, to have himself declared incompetent and to have these proceedings stayed be denied. Referred to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due w/in 14 days. (Yin, K)
November 24, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 147 STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/23/09 ordering the parties shall file briefs on or before 01/20/10. (Plummer, M)
September 3, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 139 STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/3/09 and agreed between the parties: Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/21/2009 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (GGH) before Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows. (Yin, K)
July 29, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 137 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 07/28/09 ordering not later than 09/11/09, the parties shall file respective witness and exhibit lists. Any objections to exhibits must be raised in a filing with this court no later than 09/18/09. (Plummer, M)
April 16, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 134 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 04/17/09 ordering the court approves the proposed schedule with the following modifications. Dr Ponath shall provide a report to the court and the parties' counsel no later than 60 days fro m the filed date of this order which will detail his opinions on petitioner's present competency. No later than 20 days from the service of that report, respondent shall provide his views on further proceedings, including the necessity of an ev identiary hearing. No later than 20 days from the service of respondent's briefing, petitioner shall provide his views. After receipt of petitioner's briefing the court will schedule those proceedings which appear necessary with or withou t further consultation with the parties. Paragrah 10 of the stipulation (outline of protective order) is ordered to be in effect with the exception that the court will determine whether the report shall be finally sealed upon motion or stipulation of the parties. The report may be filed under seal at the same time a party(s) requests sealing pending a final determination on the request.(Plummer, M)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lewis v. Woodford
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Milton Lewis
Represented By: David A Senior
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Jeanne S. Woodford
Represented By: Barton Elwell Bowers
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?