Opinion
4:20-cv-08206-HSG
09-20-2021
JARVIS J. MASTERS, Petitioner, v. RON BROOMFIELD, Acting Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent.
Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Michael F. Williams, P.C. (Admitted pro hac vice) Erica Y. Williams, P.C. (Admitted pro hac vice) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Ashley E. Littlefield (Bar No. 281027) Austin Klar (Bar No. 292271) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Attorneys for Petitioner Rob Bonta Attorney General of California Lance Winters Chief Assistant Attorney General James William Bilderback II Senior Assistant Attorney General Sarah J. Farhat Deputy Attorney General Alice B. Lustre (Bar No. 241994) Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent
Petition filed: November 20, 2020
Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.
Michael F. Williams, P.C. (Admitted pro hac vice)
Erica Y. Williams, P.C. (Admitted pro hac vice)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Ashley E. Littlefield (Bar No. 281027)
Austin Klar (Bar No. 292271)
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Attorneys for Petitioner
Rob Bonta
Attorney General of California
Lance Winters
Chief Assistant Attorney General
James William Bilderback II
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Sarah J. Farhat
Deputy Attorney General
Alice B. Lustre (Bar No. 241994)
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Respondent
DEATH PENALTY CASE
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME AND ORDER PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 6-2
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Jarvis J. Masters (“Petitioner”) and Respondent Ron Broomfield (“Respondent”) hereby stipulate and jointly request that the Court enter an Order extending the time for filing of Petitioner's Traverse through and including Monday, October 5, 2021. This two-week extension is necessary in order to allow Petitioner to have confidential and privileged communications with his legal counsel concerning the draft pleadings and strategy in the case. In support of their request, and pursuant to Civil Rule L.R. 6-2, the parties state as follows:
Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on November 20, 2020. ECF No. 1.
On January 19, counsel for the parties submitted a Joint Case Management Statement that provided for the filing of the Respondent's answer on or before June 1, 2021, and the filing of the Traverse on or before July 1, 2021-30 days after the Respondent's answer. ECF No. 17. And, on February 9, 2021, the Court ordered the same. ECF No. 19.
On May 27, 2021, Respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. Respondent requested that the Answer be due by July 30, 2021. ECF No. 24. The Court granted the Motion on June 8, 2021. ECF No. 25.
On June 23, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulated Request for Order and Proposed Order Changing Time to file Petitioner's Traverse. Petitioner requested that the Traverse be due by August 30, 2021. ECF No. 26. The Court granted the Stipulation on June 25, 2021. ECF No. 27.
On July 28, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulated Request for Order Changing Time to file Respondent's Answer. Respondent requested that the Answer be due by August 6, 2021 and Petitioner's Traverse be due by September 6, 2021. ECF 28. The Court granted the Stipulation on July 28, 2021.
On August 6, 2021, Respondent filed its Answer. ECF No. 30. On August 19, 2021, the parties asked the Court to extend the deadline for Petitioner to file his Traverse to September 20, 2021. Moving the Traverse deadline was necessary in light of the extended Answer Deadline. ECF No. 31. The Court granted this extension. ECF No. 32.
On August 17, 2021, Petitioner's counsel contacted officials at San Quentin State Prison in order to arrange legal calls and visits with Petitioner concerning the Respondents' Answer, Petitioner's Traverse, and litigation strategy. See Declaration of Michael F. Williams in Support of Stipulated Request for Order Changing Time and [Proposed] Order Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 (“Williams Decl.”) ¶ 4. The officials at San Quentin State Prison responded that the prison had implemented new limits on calls with prisoners. See Id. On August 20, 2021, the officials announced that the prison had canceled all in-person visits and will begin scheduling legal calls “when things are safe.” See Id. During the next two weeks, on September 1, 2021 and September 10, 2021, Petitioner's counsel attempted to schedule legal calls with Petitioner and received no response from prison officials. See Id.
Petitioner's counsel has also learned that prison officials have been opening and reviewing privileged postal communications from Petitioner's counsel. The communications, relating to Respondents' Answer and counsel's strategic impressions concerning the Answer, were clearly marked “Legal Mail” when sent to Petitioner. See Id. at 5. This intrusion upon the attorney-client privilege has impeded Petitioner's ability to consult confidentially with Petitioner's counsel about the case. See Id. Petitioner's counsel has asked Respondents' counsel for assistance in asking prison officials to respect the confidentiality of legal mail. See Id. The availability of a secure channel for confidential communications between client and counsel is necessary for the review and finalization of the Traverse, as well as other important aspects of this case.
Accordingly, the parties have agreed to move the deadline for Petitioner to file his Traverse to October 5, 2021, 15 days after the current deadline for Petitioner's Traverse.
ATTESTATION
I, Michael F. Williams , hereby attest, pursuant to United States District Court, Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other Signatory hereto.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that the time for filing the Traverse to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is extended to and including Monday, October 5, 2021.