From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Proctor v. Ayers

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2008
No. CIV S-96-1401-JAM-CMK (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-96-1401-JAM-CMK.

May 27, 2008


DEATH PENALTY CASE ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner's motion for a further extension of time (Doc. 267) to file objections to the court's May 15, 2007, findings and recommendations.

On January 28, 2008, the court issued an order setting a schedule for the remainder of Phase III of this litigation. That order provided, among other things, that the parties's objections to the May 15, 2007, findings and recommendations be filed by April 30, 2008, and that responses thereto be filed by June 30, 2008. On April 23, 2008, petitioner sought a 60-day extension of the April 30, 2008, deadline to file objections. The court granted the request in part, permitting petitioner to file objections by May 30, 2008. The court stated that further request for an extension of the deadline to file objections would be disfavored.

Petitioner now seeks a further extension of time. Specifically, not only does petitioner seek the original 60-day extension, he seeks an addition 30 days, for a total extension of time of 90 days from the original April 30, 2008 deadline. In support of the instant request, petitioner's counsel outline "particular reasons warranting the extension." Counsel state:

The first motion for an extension of time did not list specific reasons in support of the request because "respondent readily agreed to the requested extension of time."

. . . First, both Mr. Thomson and Ms. Lipsig spent a significant amount of time preparing the request for reconsideration of this Court's budget order. The request for reconsideration was submitted for filing on May 5, 2008. Additional time will be spent by them preparing the request to reconsider the scheduling order, which is due on May 30, 2008. In addition to working on this request, both counsel have substantial obligations in other cases.

Mr. Thomson lists the following other obligations:

1. A May 30, 2008, deadline to file a reply brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals;
2. A May 25, 2008 deadline to file a reply brief in a capital habeas case pending in Tennessee;
3. A September 2, 2008, trial date in a federal death penalty case pending in California;
4. A June 16, 2008 deadline to file a traverse in a capital habeas case pending in Nevada; and
5. A May 31, 2008, deadline to file objections to findings and recommendations issued in another capital habeas case pending in this court.

Ms. Lipsig lists the following other obligations:

1. Several "multi-day" trips during May and June 2008 to interview witnesses in her capacity as counsel with the Office of the State Public Defender;
2. A June 5, 2008, deadline to prepare proposed settled statements in a capital habeas case pending in state court;
3. An imminent deadline for filing of an amended petition in a non-capital habeas case pending in this court.

Counsel states only that the amended petition "is now due."

Based on the other obligations outlined by counsel, the court finds that good cause exists to grant petitioner's original request for a 60-day extension of time. In particular, it appears that the majority of the other obligations will have been met by counsel by the end of May or beginning of June 2008. Therefore, the court will grant the instant request, again in part, and extend the deadline for petitioner to file objections to June 30, 2008. This will provide counsel almost an entire month after completion of the majority of their other obligations to prepare objections.

Counsel do not state whether respondents agree to a 90-day extension of time.

This time is in addition to the time that has passed since the scheduling order setting the original objection deadline was issued on January 28, 2008 — more than three months ago — and the time that has passed since the findings and recommendations were issued on May 15, 2007 — more than one year ago.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's request for a further extension of time (Doc. 267) to file objections to the court's May 15, 2007, findings and recommendations is granted, in part;

2. Objections are due by June 30, 2008;

3. Responses to objections are due by August 29, 2008; and

4. Any further request for an extension of these deadlines is disfavored.


Summaries of

Proctor v. Ayers

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2008
No. CIV S-96-1401-JAM-CMK (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2008)
Case details for

Proctor v. Ayers

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM A. PROCTOR, Petitioner, v. ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., et al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 27, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-96-1401-JAM-CMK (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2008)