Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD J. VIEIRA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Vincent Cullens, as Acting Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison,* )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. 1:05-cv-1492-OWW

DEATH PENALTY CASE

PHASE III CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

February 18, 2010 CMC: VACATED

 

Petitioner Richard J. Vieira (“Vieira”) filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on October

29, 2006 (doc. 37). On October 31, 2006, he filed a state petition for habeas corpus in the California

Supreme Court (In re Richard J. Vieira, S147688). The California Supreme Court denied Vieira’s

October 31, 2006 state habeas corpus petition on June 24, 2009. 

Returning to federal proceedings, on July 10, 2009, Respondent Vincent Cullens, as Acting

Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”) was ordered to file an answer to the federal petition

by November 10, 2009 (doc. 62). The Warden requested, and on November 17, 2009, received an

extension for the due date of his answer up to and including December 10, 2009. The Warden was

directed to file his answer without points and authorities, consistent with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing

§ 2254Cases,raising all substantive and procedural affirmative defenses he intended to pursue (doc. 66).

On December 9, 2009, the Warden filed an answer reserving the Teague-bar defense pending procedural

default litigation and resolution. After further direction from the Court and an objection from Vieira,

the Warden filed an amended answer to the petition on February 2, 2010 (doc. 74). In an earlier joint

*Vincent Cullens is substituted for his predecessor, Robert K. Wong, as Acting Warden of San Quenin State Prison

05dp1492#4.PhaseIIICaseMgmtOrd.Vie.wpd 1 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 78 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

statement (doc. 68), the parties agreed that the federal petition is fully exhausted. With the filing of the

Warden’s amended answer on February 2, 2010, the pleadings are at issue and Phase II of the litigation

has come to an end.

In Phase III of federal capital habeas corpus litigation, the pleadings are briefed and further

evidentiary development is requested. Phase III will end when Vieira’s anticipated motion for an

evidentiary hearing is resolve. Based on the briefing schedule set out below, Phase III is anticipated to

last through September 30, 2012. Resolution of the evidentiary hearing motion includes a determination

of the merits of claims for which evidentiary development is requested. Record based claims also may

be resolved on the merits during Phase III. If an evidentiary hearing is ordered, the case will progress

to Phase IV.

Originally, this matter was scheduled for a telephonic Phase III Case Management Conference

at which both parties would appear to discuss briefing schedules. Counsel for the Warden would then

be excused and further discussions would continue with Vieira’s counsel to discuss a Phase III budget. 

Since the parties are in agreement with respect to a briefing schedule, the need for a telephonic hearing

is obviated.

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

1. Vieira’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of his petition shall be filed on or

before August 2, 2010.

2. The Warden’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the petition shall be filed

on or before February 2, 2011.

3. Vieira shall file a reply brief on or before May 2, 2011.

4. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer about the need to conduct discovery. It is

anticipated that motions for formal discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases or record expansion pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases will be

presented and resolved without altering the schedule for briefing the petition.

5. Vieira shall file his motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules Governing

§ 2254 Cases on or before June 2, 2011. The evidentiarymotion shall be limited to identification

of: (a) the claims for which a hearing is sought; (b) an offer of proof as to the evidence sought

05dp1492#4.PhaseIIICaseMgmtOrd.Vie.wpd 2

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 78 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to be presented; (c) a brief statement of the legal grounds for the evidentiary hearing; and (d) an

explanation of diligence exercised in state court to develop the claims before the California

Supreme Court (see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). In light of the briefing of the petition, legal

analysis and citation of authorities in support of claims for which a hearing is sought will not be

necessary.

6. The Warden shall file his opposition to the evidentiary hearing motion on or before July 6, 2011.

7. Vieira shall file his reply to the opposition on or before August 8, 2011.

SO ORDERED.

Date: February 17, 2010 

 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 Oliver W. Wanger

United States District Judge

05dp1492#4.PhaseIIICaseMgmtOrd.Vie.wpd 3

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 78 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 3