Opinion
NO. CIV-S-97-0152 KJM
10-19-2011
LANCE IAN OSBAND, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison, Respondent.
DANIEL BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender TIVON SCHARDL, Fla. Bar #73016 Trial & Habeas Counsel Attorneys for Petitioner LANCE IAN OSBAND
DANIEL BRODERICK, Bar #89424
Federal Defender
TIVON SCHARDL, Fla. Bar #73016
Trial & Habeas Counsel
Attorneys for Petitioner
LANCE IAN OSBAND
CAPITAL CASE
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
On October 11, 2011, this Court held a hearing regarding the effects of Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ____, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011). Each party appeared through counsel. Having determined that it is appropriate at this time to consider whether 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) bars relief for the claims on which an evidentiary hearing was granted, the court directed the parties to meet and confer and propose a briefing schedule. The parties did so and filed a joint statement reflecting their agreement. Having considered the briefs and joint statement, the court finds the proposed schedule is appropriate and should be adopted.
No later than January 26, 2012, Petitioner shall file an opening brief addressing the application of § 2254(d) to Claims I, V, IX, and XX. Although the evidentiary hearing was ordered on only a portion of some claims, Petitioner shall address the claims in toto, as they were presented to the California Supreme Court. See Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. at 1398 ("review under §2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits").
No later than April 25, 2012, Respondent shall file an answer brief.
No later than June 24, 2012, Petitioner shall file any reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ____