| January 9, 2018 |
Filing
200
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/9/2018 CERTIFYING the testimony of David Kurtzman is relevant and material to the instant action; AUTHORIZING Petitioner to issue a subpoena pursuant to this Order; and DIRECTING the Marshal to pay fees and expenses for Mr. Kurtzman to travel to Sacramento, CA for his deposition on 2/8/2018 pursuant to this Order. (cc: USM) (Henshaw, R)
|
| January 3, 2017 |
Filing
191
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/03/17 ordering petitioner is granted permission to file his section 2254(d) brief, including all claims, either 45 days from Ms. Gardner's return or 45 days from 3/01/17, whichever comes first. (Plummer, M)
|
| December 18, 2015 |
Filing
178
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/18/15 ORDERING that respondents October 20, 2015 Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 172 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Within 30 days of the filed date of this order, respondent shall propound the authorized discovery requests. (Dillon, M)
|
| November 17, 2015 |
Filing
176
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/17/15 ORDERING that 174 Motion for Extension of time. Petitioner shall file his section 2254(d) brief by June 12, 2016.(Dillon, M)
|
| October 14, 2015 |
Filing
171
PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/14/15 regarding discovery prior to Rule 27 depositions. (See order for further details) (Plummer, M)
|
| September 22, 2015 |
Filing
169
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 09/22/15 ordering the court sets the following schedule for any discovery related to the taking of the testimony of the 7 witnesses identified above. Within 30 days of the filed date of this or der, respondent shall file any motion for discovery related to the taking of the testimony of Dr. Albert Globus, Marjorie Comer, Joanne Wells, Shirley Garrett, Timothy Jayne Sr., Fairman Jayne and David Kurtzman. Respondent should not notice the mot ion for hearing. If the parties seek a hearing, they shall notify the court within 10 days after the date scheduled for filing the reply. Within 30 days of the filed date of respondent's motion, petitioner shall file an opposition. Respondent may file a reply within 14 days thereafter. If respondent does not move for discovery as set forth in paragraph 1, petitioner may proceed to schedule the testimony depositions. Within 20 days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file a proposed protective order. (Plummer, M)
|
| September 9, 2015 |
Filing
167
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/9/15 GRANTING 166 Motion for Extension of time. The time for filing respondents status report described in the courts September 1, 2015 order is extended through and including September 21, 2015. (Dillon, M)
|
| September 1, 2015 |
Filing
165
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/1/15 ORDERING that within ten days of the filed date of this order, respondent shall file a status report explaining the following: Whether, after review of discovery, he may be willing to stipulate to the submission of the declarations of the social history witnesses and Juror Kurtzman as their testimony; Whether, after receipt of the discovery provided by petitioner on August 27, he intends to move for additional discovery prior to the taking of testimony; and his position on the protective order proposed by petitioner, which this court has approved in Lenart v. Warden, 2:05-cv-1912 MCE CKD (ECF Nos. 139, 141).(Dillon, M)
|
| July 29, 2015 |
Filing
163
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 7/28/15 ORDERING that Respondent's Request for Reconsideration 160 is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
| May 29, 2015 |
Filing
157
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/28/15 ORDERING that Petitioners March 13, 2015 Motion to Perpetuate the Testimony of Dr. Albert Globus (ECF No. 143 ) is GRANTED. Petitioners April 15, 2015 Motion to Introduce Declaratio ns in Lieu of Testimony and/or to Perpetuate Testimony (ECF No. 146 ) is GRANTED with respect to witnesses Marjorie Comer, Joanne Wells, Shirley Garrett, Timothy Jayne, Fairman Jayne, and David Kurtzman. The motion is DENIED with respect to witness Marijo Giardina. Within thirty days of the filed date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the method for taking the testimony of these witnesses. (Dillon, M)
|
| May 5, 2015 |
Filing
149
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 05/05/15 ordering the clerk of the court is directed to file under seal the following documents: petitioner's 04/15/15 request to seal; respondent's 04/24/15 opposition; and petitioner's 04/27/15 reply. The clerk is also directed to file under seal the 04/15/15 Declaration of Dorothy Ballew. (Plummer, M)
|
| April 22, 2015 |
Filing
148
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/22/15 ORDERING that within five days of the filed date of this order, respondent shall submit a response to the request to seal by e-mailing it to ckdorders@caed.uscourts.gov.(Dillon, M)
|
| April 7, 2015 |
Filing
145
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 04/06/15 as to 143 MOTION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF DR. ALBERT GLOBUS. ( Motion Hearing continued to 5/27/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.) (Plummer, M)
|
| July 10, 2014 |
Filing
141
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/9/14 ORDERING that by February 12, 2016, petitioner shall file a memorandum of points and authorities addressing the application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to each claim in the petition. Within three months of the filing date of petitioners opening memorandum, respondent shall file a responsive memorandum. Within three months of the filing date of respondents response, petitioner shall file any reply.(Dillon, M)
|
| June 27, 2014 |
Filing
139
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 06/27/14 ordering ( Status Conference set for 7/9/2014 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.) (Plummer, M)
|
| April 22, 2014 |
Filing
136
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/22/14 ORDERING that the interlineations identified by respondent in his March 18, 2014 Statement are appropriate except as identified herein. Within sixty days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file a final copy of the petition to avoid any future confusion. The withdrawn, excised portions may be removed or may simply be interlineated. Because the court recognizes that petitioners counsel is currently unavailable, requests for extensions of this deadline may be brief.(Dillon, M)
|
| April 8, 2014 |
Filing
132
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/8/14 ORDERING that within ten days of the filed date of this order, respondent shall file a brief response to petitioners objections.(Dillon, M)
|
| March 26, 2014 |
Filing
130
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/26/14 ORDERING that Within twenty days of the filed date of this order, petitioners currently assigned counsel or the head of the Federal Defenders Capital Habeas Unit shall file under seal a letter explaining the status of petitioners representation. (Dillon, M)
|
| February 27, 2014 |
Filing
127
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 02/27/14 ordering by 03/24/14, respondent shall file a copy of the petition, or the relevant pages of the petition, which reflects the withdrawal of the unexhausted claims by striking through th ose unexhausted portions of the petition. By 04/07/14, petitioner shall file either a notice confirming respondent's identification of the unexhausted portions of the petition or a clear, brief explanation why respondent's proposal does no t conform to the Findings and Recommendations and Order. If petitioner objects to respondent's proposal, petitioner shall include copies of petition pages reflecting his understanding of the withdrawn claims. Prior to 03/24/14, the parties sha ll meet and confer regarding a schedule for completing points and authorities addressing the application of 28 USC 2254 (d) to each claim in the petition. If the parties agree upon a briefing schedule, by March 24 they shall file a joint statement describing the schedule. If the parties are unable to agree upon a briefing schedule, by March 24 each party shall file a proposed briefing schedule and a brief statement regarding the source of the disagreement. (Plummer, M)
|
| February 18, 2014 |
Filing
125
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/18/2014 GRANTING petitioner's 124 unopposed motion; the Status Conference is CONTINUED to 2/26/2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney. (Yin, K)
|
| December 3, 2013 |
Filing
119
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/03/13 ordering ( Status Conference set for 12/18/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (CKD) before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney.) The parties need not file status conference statements. (Plummer, M)
|
| November 21, 2013 |
Filing
118
ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 11/19/2013 ADOPTING 114 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full, as detailed in this Order. (Waggoner, D)
|
| April 25, 2012 |
Filing
114
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 04/24/12 recommending that the district court hold as follows: Claim 1 is exhausted. The Eighth Amendment aspect of claim 22, including the argument that the polygraph ref erence violated petitioner's right to a non-arbitrary penalty determination, is not exhausted. To the extent petitioner's argument in claims 22 regarding his right to a proper application of state evidentiary rules fundamentally differs fr om his argument of trial court error, it is unexhausted. In all other respects claims 22 is exhausted. The 6th and 8th Amendment aspects of claim 23 are not exhausted. In all other respects, claim 23 is exhausted. The 6th and 8th amendment aspect s of claim 24 are not exhausted. In all other respects, claim 24 is exhausted. The 6th and 8th amendment aspects of claim 25 are not exhausted. To the extent petitioner's argument in claim 25 regarding his right to a proper application of sta te evidentiary rules fundamentally differs from his argument of trial court error, it is unexhausted. In all other respects, claim 25 is exhausted. The 6th and 8th amendment aspects of claim 26 are not exhausted. In all other respects, claim 26 is exhausted. The 6th and 8th Amendment aspects of claim 27 are not exhausted. In all other respects, claim 27 is exhausted. The 6th and 8th Amendment aspects of claim 28, including arguments regarding petitioner's rights to confrontation and t o a non-arbitrary verdict, are not exhausted. To the extent petitioner's argument in claim 28 regarding his right to a proper application of state evidentiary rules fundamentally differs from his argument of trial court error, it is unexhausted . In all other respects, claim 28 is exhausted. The Eighth Amendment aspect and the argument that petitioner was arbitrarily deprived of a state law entitlement in claim 31 are not exhausted. To the extent petitioner's argument in claim 31 re garding his right to trial by jury differs fundamentally from his Due Process and Confrontation Clause arguments, it is unexhausted. In all other respects, claim 31 is exhausted. The 5th and 6th Amendment aspects of claim 32 are not exhausted. In a ll other respects, claim 32 is exhausted. Claim 33 is exhausted. Claim 34 is exhausted. The argument in claim 35 that petitioner was arbitrarily deprived of a state law entitlement is not exhausted. In all other respects, claim 35 is exhausted. The argument in claim 39 that petitioner was arbitrarily deprived of a state law entitlement is not exhausted. In all other respects, claim 39 is exhausted. As currently stated, claim 49 is not exhausted. If petitioner deletes the reference to claim 31 in claim 49, this court would find claim 49 exhausted. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M)
|
| January 19, 2012 |
Filing
110
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 01/18/12 denying 103 Motion for Discovery. By 02/18/12 the parties shall meet and confer regarding respondent's identification of unexhausted claims or subclaims in the petition. By 03/0 3/12 the parties shall file a joint statement with the following information: Identification of each claim or subclaim which respondent contends in unexhausted. For each identified claim or subclaim, a complete statement of each party's positio n, including citations to the record and, if necessary, legal argument. The parties shall not refer back to argument they made in prior filing with this court. After receipt of the parties joint statement, the court will determine whether oral argument is necessary on any exhaustion issues. (Plummer, M)
|
| November 9, 2011 |
Filing
104
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/9/11 ORDERING that in his opposition to petitioners discovery motion, respondent shall include a proposed schedule for addressing upcoming issues, including the procedural defenses raised in t he answer, the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), discovery, any motion for an evidentiary hearing, and the merits of petitioners claims. In his reply brief, petitioner shall include a response to respondents proposals and, to the extent he disagrees, make new proposals. The parties scheduling proposals shall specifically reference the effect of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) on all aspects of this proceeding.(Dillon, M)
|
| June 6, 2011 |
Filing
93
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/6/11 ORDERING that the time for filing respondent's responsive pleading is EXTENDED through and including 7/8/2011. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
| April 15, 2011 |
Filing
91
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/15/11 ordering respondent's responsive pleading is due on 05/09/11 88 . That responsive pleading shall include points and authorities on the impact of Cullen v. Pinholster on these proceedin gs. Petitioenr's 04/11/11 motion for an extension of time to file the traverse 89 is granted. Petitioner's traverse shall be filed by 06/13/11. The traverse shall include responsive points and authorities addressing Pinholster.(Plummer, M)
|
| October 7, 2010 |
Filing
86
ORDER to Correct supplemental lodgement of state court record signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/6/10 ORDERING that the listed portions of the original lodged record shall be stricken and returned to respondent; petitioner will replace such pleadings with clean copies. Petitioner shall have 60 days after the entry of the Courts order to effectuate the correction of the lodgement of the state court record as set forth in this order.(Dillon, M)
|
| August 30, 2010 |
Filing
84
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/27/10 ordering the parties shall meet and confer and offer a proposed stipulation and order for the court's consideration with respect to the correction of the record previously lodged by respondent in this action. Respondent shall file his response to the pending petition by 03/10/11. Petitioner shall file his traverse by 04/14/11. (Plummer, M)
|