Steele v. Woodford
| Raymond Edward Steele |
| Jeanne S. Woodford and John Stokes |
| 2:2003cv00143 |
| January 24, 2003 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Marin |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Death Penalty |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
252
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/09/15 recommending that this case be dismissed due to the death of the petitioner. Referred to Judge Garland. E. Burrell. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
241
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/19/2014 APPOINTING Michael Snedeker as co-counsel for petitioner. Mr. Snedeker shall review the budgeting procedures attached as Appendix A. In addition, Mr. Snedeker shall complete the attached Rate Justification Worksheet, Appendix B, and file it under seal within ten days. Within 5 days, petitioner's counsel shall inform the court whether they intend to seek another extension of the opening brief deadline. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
225
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/18/12 ORDERING that by March 1, 2014, petitioner shall file a memorandum of points and authorities regarding the application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to each claim in the first amended p etition. Petitioners counsel are cautioned that the court feels this filing date is extremely generous. Any request for an extension of this time will be granted only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Respondent shall file an opposi tion brief within six months after petitioners filing. Petitioner may file a reply within three months thereafter. Briefing shall be limited to the application of section 2254(d) to petitioners claims. Any motion for an evidentiary hearing and any briefing of procedural default issues will be addressed after resolution of the section 2254(d) issues.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
222
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/5/12: Telephonic Status and Scheduling Conference is SET for 10/17/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. By the 5:00 p.m. on 10/15/2012, counsel shall contact Courtroom Deputy Kyle Owen at (916) 930-4004 to provide contact telephone numbers for the conference. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
214
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/07/12 granting 213 Motion to seal briefing. Petitioner's 06/01/12 motion for leave to preserve testimony and the opposition and reply briefs thereto shall be filed under seal. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
210
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/19/2012 ORDERING that the requirement in the 182 court's order that petitioner seek "all known discovery" in his discovery motion is VACATED; by 6/1/2012, petitioner shall fila a motion for time-sensitive discovery; by 7/16/2012, respondent's opposition due; and by 8/6/2012, petitioner's reply, if any, due. (Yin, K)
|
|
Filing
209
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 04/09/12 ordering ( Scheduling Conference set for 4/19/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.) (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
196
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/15/11 ORDERING that the court has determined it will be most efficient to delay consideration of the procedural default issues remanded by Judge Burrell until after a determination on the discovery motion described in the courts September 8, 2011 order. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
194
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/1/11 ORDERING that the district judge has referred back to this court the procedural default issues raised in respondents November 1, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration 193 . On December 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., the undersigned shall conduct a telephonic status conference. Counsel shall be prepared to discuss when procedural default issues should be addressed, and, if appropriate, a schedule for doing so. (Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
193
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 11/30/11 ORDERING that the portion of the 11/10/10 order adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations on procedural default is VACATED. This case is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration and findings and recommendations. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
182
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/8/11 ORDERING as follows: The deadlines for discovery motions and for a motion for an evidentiary hearing set out in the February 7, 2011 Order are lifted; By November 30, 2011, petitioner shal l file any motions for discovery. In addition to demonstrating good cause under Habeas Rule 6, any motion for discovery shall include: (a) argument on whether satisfaction of the 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) standard is a necessary part of the good caus e showing for discovery; and (b) points and authorities showing that the section 2254(d) standard is satisfied, based on the state court record, for every claim upon which petitioner seeks discovery. Within forty-five days of service of petitioner&# 039;s discovery motion, respondent may file an opposition. Within thirty days of service of the opposition, petitioner may file a reply. The court will schedule argument if necessary; Within twenty days of the filed date of this order, Mr. Giannini shall submit under seal a proposed budget for his anticipated work through the filing of the discovery reply brief. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
175
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 5/4/11 GRANTING 174 Motion for Extension of time. The petitioners brief shall be filed on or before May 25, 2011. Within 20 days of the filing of petitioners brief, respondent shall file an opposition. Within 10 days thereafter, petitioner may file a reply.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
173
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 04/14/11 ordering within 20 days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file a brief on the impact of Cullen v. Pinholster on these proceedings and, in particular, on the discovery and motion for an evidentiary hearing contemplated in the court's 02/07/11 order. Within 21 days of the filing of petitioner's brief, respondent shall file an opposition. Within 10 days thereafter, petitioner may file a reply. The February 7 th order advised Mr. Giannini to submit a budget for the remainder of phase III of these proceedings. Until the court has resolved the issues raised by Pinholster. Mr. Giannini shall not propose that budget. Mr. Giannini may, however, submit a request to amend the phase III budget to account for his time necessary to respond to this order. (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
170
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 01/19/11 ordering the status conference described in the court's 12/01/10 order shall be held telephonically. ( Status Conference set for 2/3/2011 at 01:30 PM in Redding (CMK) before Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison.) (Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
167
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/9/10: Status Conference continued to 1/12/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (KJM) before Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Manzer, C)
|
|
Filing
165
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/29/10 ORDERING a status conference shall be held on 12/15/10 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom #26; the parties need not file status reports but counsel shall be prepared to discuss: (1) whether petit ioner wishes to file a traverse, (2) whether either party will seek discovery prior to the filing of any motion for an evidentiary hearing and, if so, a schedule for doing so, and (3) a date for filing any motion for an evidentiary hearing. (Carlos, K)
|
|
Filing
164
ORDER ADOPTING 151 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 11/10/2010. Petitioner's 134 Motion to Strike is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: defenses based on Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 2 88 (1989), asserted by respondent in Answer with respect to claims 4, 6, 29, 40.C.1, 40.C.8, 40.D, 40.E, 41.G, 41.M, 44, 45, 46, 55 are STRICKEN from the Answer. Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Respondents request that Court find petitioners claims 3, 5, 6, 20, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46, 65, and 66 barred as procedurally defaulted is DENIED. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
159
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/26/10, ORDERING that both petitioner and respondent are GRANTED an ext of time until 10/4/10, to file their respective responses to each other's objections to 151 the Order and Findings and Recommendations. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
155
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/14/10 ORDERING that petitioner's 153 Motion for Extension of Time in which to file objections is GRANTED; petitioner's objections are now due 08/18/10. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
154
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/06/10 GRANTING respondent's 153 Motion for Extension of Time to respond to F&Rs; the response is due 08/18/10. (Benson, A.)
|
|
Filing
151
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/14/10 ORDERING that petitioner's 1/12/09 Motion for Leave to File Surreply 145 is granted; and RECOMMENDING that Petitioner's 9/23/08 Motion to Str ike 134 be granted in part and denied in part as follows. It is recommended that the defenses based on Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), asserted by respondent in the Answer with respect to claims 4, 6, 29, 40.C.1, 40.C.8, 40.D, 40.E, 41.G, 41.M , 44, 45, 46, 55 be stricken from the Answer. It is further recommended that petitioner's Motion to Strike be denied in all other respects; Respondent's request that the court find petitioner's claims 3, 5, 6, 20, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46, 65, and 66 barred as procedurally defaulted be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr; Objections due within 21 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
