Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00013/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00013-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILTON OTIS LEWIS,

Petitioner, CIV-S-02-0013 FCD GGH DP

vs. DEATH PENALTY CASE

JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden,

Respondent. AMENDED BUDGET ORDER

 /

Introduction and Summary

The Ninth Circuit Capital Case Committee did not approve the budget submitted

for Phases III and IV, and requested further explanation. The undersigned held a hearing into the

details of the proposed budget on October 20, 2006. The undersigned found at hearing that the

representations of counsel on the record may stand in lieu of a declaration explaining the same

details; indeed, because the undersigned’s questions were answered in a give and take manner,

the hearing may be superior to simply having a declaration submitted.

In this Amended Budget Order, the undersigned will give a summary of the

proceedings held thus far in the case, two special considerations for budgeting in this case (initial

approved budgeting for “three” phases,” focus on penalty phase) and will detail the findings and

conclusions made on the proposed budget in a line-by-line, or where appropriate, collective

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 12
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

2

category basis. Attached for the Committee’s information is a transcript of the hearing

(attachment 1), a table of contents for the Amended Petition (attachment 2), and the proposed

budget as it appeared on the spreadsheet (attachment 3). Although the undersigned will discuss

all items on the spreadsheet, he will not necessarily repeat herein all figures on the spreadsheet.

Procedural Background of the Case

Counsel was appointed on May 5, 2002. An initial motion regarding a

prospective tolling of the AEDPA limitations period was adjudicated. The Petition in this case

was filed on March 31, 2003. After exhaustion took place, an Amended Petition, the operative

petition in this case, was filed on December 13, 2004. Petitioner quickly brought an initial

summary judgment motion on several claims having primarily to do with evidence submitted in

the prosecution of the penalty phase. The court, however, adjudicated these claims in favor of

respondent. 

Respondent then brought a motion for summary judgment on selected claims;

petitioner has opposed and brought his own motion for summary judgment on selected claims. 

This is the second such motion brought in the case, and brings to an end law and motion on the

merits prior to an evidentiary hearing, except perhaps, for a motion by respondent that petitioner

does not meet the AEDPA procedural threshold for an evidentiary hearing on certain claims. In

order to understand what had been ruled upon, what is pending ruling, and what remains to be

ruled upon at evidentiary hearing, the undersigned sets forth the following chart of the 103 claim

First Amended Petition (See Attached Table of Contents for a brief description of the claims):

Claims Ruled Upon By Findings and Recommendations of July 12, 2005; Order

of October 14, 2005 (summary judgment awarded to respondent): 1, 2, 3, and 7.

Claims pending ruling in the second motion for summary judgment: (“R” =

respondent’s motion; “P”= petitioner’s cross-motion):

8–R

25-R

29-R

33- R & P

34-R

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 12
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

3

35-R

36-R & P

37-R & P

38-R & P

39-R & P

40-R & P

41-R & P

42-R & P

43-R & P

44-R

45-R

46-R & P

47-R & P

48 -R & P

49 -R & P

50 -R & P

51 -R & P

52 -R & P

53 -R & P

54 -R & P

55 -R & P

56 -R & P

57 -R & P

58 -R & P

59 -R & P

60 -R & P

61 -R & P

62 -R & P

63 -R & P

64 -R & P

65 -R & P

66 -R

67 -R & P

68 -R

71 -R & P

72 -R & P

73 -R & P

74 -R & P

75 -R & P

76 -R & P

77 -R & P

78 -R & P

79 -R & P

80 -R & P

81 -R & P

82 -R & P

83 -R & P

84 -R & P

85 -R & P

86 -R

87 -R & P

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 12
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

 All briefing is accomplished and the hearing has been held. The undersigned is “waist 1

deep” into resolving those issues at the present time.

4

88 -R & P

89 -R

90- R

91 -R & P

92 -R & P

93 -R & P

94- R

95 -R

96 -R

97 -R

98 -R & P

99 -R & P

100 -R

101 -R & P

Certain claims of the second motion, undecided at present , will be resolved at

1

evidentiary hearing. The remaining claims, not listed above, will go to evidentiary hearing

except for those claims which are procedurally deficient under AEDPA, or shall be otherwise

finally resolved on their face at evidentiary hearing. That is, respondent will be permitted to

oppose an evidentiary hearing on grounds that AEDPA precludes such, but the undersigned will

not permit yet a third motion for summary judgment on the merits. Thus, in addition to any of

the above listed claims determined to be appropriate for evidentiary hearing, Claims 4

(petitioner’s “helper” counsel disbarred), 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,

23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 69, 70, 102, 103 are all that will go to evidentiary hearing barring

an AEDPA flaw; petitioner and respondent will be allowed to request necessary discovery on all

claims set forth in this paragraph. Thus, a certain amount of discovery motion practice may

ensue.

Perhaps Unique Budgeting Aspects of This Case

The first aspect worthy of comment is that defense trial counsel put on no

evidence (and that does mean zero, see RT 3974) during the penalty phase. Thus, in connection

with ineffective assistance of counsel claims (and especially the prejudice prong of Strickland), it

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 4 of 12
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

 By previous order in this case, and approved by the Capital Case Committee for Phases

2

I and II, lead counsel and co-counsel were approved at the same rate, $160.00 hr. (within current

standards). Associate counsel is billing at $125.00 and the undersigned approves this as well. 

Efficiencies have been realized in having all counsel from the same firm working on this case.

5

was apparent at the initial budgeting phases that quite a bit of investigation would be required in

order to present penalty phase arguments of potential relevance here and which have been

recognized as generally necessary by the Ninth Circuit, e.g., social history work-up, drug and

alcohol dependency (has some relation to the involuntary manslaughter disputes in the guilt

phase), other psychiatric/psychological issues. Since these issues must be developed essentially

from scratch, this aspect of the case has been (and will be) fairly costly. 

The second aspect has to do with the fact that adjudication on the merits in this

habeas action began so quickly that such adjudication was not properly accounted for in the

Phase I and II budgets. To confuse matters more, under the phasing approach in vogue at the

time, the court initially endeavored to propose a budget for Phases I, II and III, but in reality, only

Phases I and II (as presently described) were accounted for. Nevertheless, for awhile, the

undersigned mistakenly recollected that, at least partially, Phase III (as currently described) had

been the subject of budget. Thus, in actuality, certain expenses in connection with adjudication

on the merits have been incurred, and will be reflected in this proposed budget nevertheless. 

Specific Approvals and Modifications to Proposed Budget (Attachment 3)

The court turns now to the specific requests in the proposed budget. The

undersigned’s conclusions are based on the October 20, 2006 hearing; however, as explained

herein, the court has modified some of the conclusions made at the hearing.

Hourly Rates for Counsel

The hourly rates approved and applicable to counsel working on this case are

presently $160 hour for lead counsel and co-counsel, and $125/hour for associate counsel. In this

case, all counsel are within the same firm.

2

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 5 of 12
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

6

Phase III First Sheet (Excludes Travel Time)

Starting from the top page of the spreadsheet, the undersigned finds counsels’

proposed time for meeting with opposition counsel, attending case management conferences, and

corresponding/consulting with petitioner as a reasonable prediction, i.e., and time which one

might expect to be expended.

Counsel seek a total of 120 hours for consulting with experts (60 each for lead

counsel and associate counsel). The undersigned declines to authorize this amount in total which

represents a total of one attorney consulting for three solid weeks. Consultation time was

approved for Phases I and II. Except for discovery preparation, and based on the undersigned’s

anecdotal experience, it is unpredictable whether the Attorney General will even seek discovery

or acquire matching experts, only some work remains to be done with the experts for Phase III

purposes. Preparation for an evidentiary hearing is included in Phase IV. Therefore, the court

will deduct 30 hours each from lead counsel and associate counsel’s prognostication of 60 hours

each. Total category deduction – $8,550.00

Several categories exist for legal briefing in Phase III. First, there are no

anticipated Chapter 154 issues in this case, and the total amount requested will be disapproved. 

As discussed at hearing, and as explained herein, except for objections to Findings and

Recommendations on the second summary judgment motion and discovery motions, all of the

prognosticated Phase III merits briefing has been accomplished. $99,130.00 has been billed thus

far for this work. Of the remaining $30,000.00 which remains to be billed, only $10,000.00

relates to the merits motions, but that time was for preparation for hearing and appearance. Time

for objections to the soon to be issued Findings and Recommendations will be addressed in the

category “post-judgment motions.” Any further briefing regarding an evidentiary hearing will be 

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 6 of 12
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

 Again, because the summary judgment motions will have determined which issues 3

remain to be resolved at evidentiary hearing (either on their face or with evidence), no omnibus

motion for an evidentiary hearing will be heard in Phase III. 

 At hearing, counsel estimated that $10,000 yet to be billed was pertinent to the second 4

summary judgment motion, most probably preparation for, and attendance at, the hearing. After

close inspection of the vouchers, the court may expand the budget in this category which only

permits $5,700 to be expended. 

7

accounted for in Phase IV. Thus, with the exception of discovery motion briefing, no further

monies will be allocated for Phase III merits briefing issues. 

3

For preparation of discovery motions, lead counsel has prognosticated 25 hours,

co-counsel 50 hours, and associate counsel 25 hours. The fact that discovery will be allowed is

not in dispute, the amount of discovery to be requested (and possibly disputed) is difficult to

predict absent a ruling on the summary judgment motion. However, it has been the experience of

the undersigned that discovery motions in capital cases can be protracted and time consuming. 

The prognosticated times are reasonable predictions and will be approved.

In sum, for merits briefing $99,130.00 (expended) is approved; $15,125.00 is

approved for discovery motions. In the six legal briefing categories discussed above, which

totaled $166,650.00 in requests, $52,395.00 has therefore been deducted. The amount approved

for these six categories is $114,255.00.

The court finds the total of 80 hours for oral argument (40 hours for lead counsel

and 40 hours for associate counsel) to be excessive for hearings held and contemplated in Phase

III. Twenty hours each will be deducted for a total deduction of $5,700.00.4

Again, it is difficult to predict with certainty the precise amount of discovery, both

paper and deposition, to be undertaken absent a ruling on the summary judgment motion. The

anticipated times are reasonably predicted.

As indicated above, objections to the pending summary judgment motions will be

subsumed within the post-judgment motion category, because Phase III will not result in final

judgment. Due to the size of the pending motion, time to be spent on preparation of objections,

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 7 of 12
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

8

or responses to objections made by respondent, can be substantial. The court finds the

prognosticated times for “objections” purposes reasonable. 

The court finds the time predicted for preparing a case management plan and

budget for Phase IV, some of which has been expended already, to be reasonable. Further, the

time incurred in revising the Phase III budget, and time predicted for possible future changes, are

reasonably predicted.

The sum total requested for Phase III activities (travel excluded) was $248,405.00. 

The court has deducted $66,645.00, and $181,760.00 is approved.

Phase III Travel

The court discussed the categories at hearing. See Transcript. With the exception

of travel to consult with Resource Counsel, who has not been approved to participate in this case,

all travel times, some of which has been expended already, are approved. Thus, $29,280.00 was

requested, $3,240.00 was deducted – $26,040.00 is approved. 

Phase III Investigator

For reasons set forth at hearing, but not here due to work product concerns, the

court determined that the purpose for which the proposed investigator would be retained does not

at this time have a reasonable possibility of being successful. The entire requested amount of

$29,500.00 is disapproved. Should counsel desire to file a pleading under seal, further justifying

retention of this proposed investigator/expert demonstrating that this expert’s proposed work

presents a colorable basis on which to find for petitioner on a claim(s), the court will reconsider.

Phase IV (Excludes Travel)

The court finds the first three categories – attending case management conferences

(6 hours), corresponding/consulting with petitioner (20 hours for lead counsel and 20 hours for

associate counsel), and consulting with co-counsel (20 hours for each counsel) to be reasonable

estimates. In all probability, there will be an evidentiary hearing; such a hearing will necessitate

the corresponding and consulting indicated, even among counsel located in one spot.

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 8 of 12
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

9

The court divides the legal briefing categories into merits and discovery. The

undersigned does not find extensive merits briefing prior to evidentiary hearing to be helpful, and

will not permit such. Necessary legal briefing will be accomplished post-hearing, and in all

probability will be pinpointed. Nevertheless, even pre-hearing, although no formal briefs are

prepared, good counsel may need to research legal issues in order for a cogent presentation of

facts to be made. A few motions in limine may have to be made. In addition, there may be some

legal briefing on the procedural AEDPA threshold issues on whether an evidentiary hearing can

be held in the first instance.

Thus, significant deductions will be made in the briefing categories. The entire

$30,250.00 for legal research/merits brief and response is disapproved. All time requested for

legal research/prepare pre-hearings pleadings etc. is approved for the reasons set forth above.

 Phase IV contemplates further discovery motions; however, all time for such

motions having been approved for Phase III, the court anticipates little motion practice with

respect to discovery issues in Phase IV. A total of 40 hours only will be approved, broken down

by 10 hours for lead counsel, 10 hours for co-counsel and 20 hours for associate counsel. Thus, a

total deduction of $8,900.00 is made for this category.

Again, because the amount of discovery is hard to quantify at this time, the

prognosticated amounts for taking discovery in Phase IV appear reasonable. This category will

be approved.

All recognize that evidentiary hearings, especially those including medical issues

require consultation with, and preparation of, experts. The undersigned recognizes that the

“consult” time includes a gathering of appropriate exhibits and the like for expert review. Yet

the total 300 hours requested (representing one lawyer doing nothing else for 7.5 weeks) is

excessive. Recognizing that there is no precise way to pinpoint necessary

consultation/preparation, the court reduces lead counsel by 60 hours, co-counsel by 60 hours and

associate counsel by 60 hours. That is, 120 hours of consult and preparation should be enough. 

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 9 of 12
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

10

A total of $26,700.00 is disapproved leaving $17,800.00 approved. 

The court will permit two counsel for petitioner to be present at hearing. Thus,

the 50 hours each predicted for appearances, including any post-hearing arguments, is a 

conservative prediction, and may turn out to be a bit low. The court will approve any necessary

appearance time in excess of what is predicted.

As recognized earlier, post-hearing briefs will be pinpointed to specific areas. 

Thus, a total requested 200 hours for post-hearing briefing appears at the high end of reasonable. 

Because the court cut merits briefing pre-hearing, the requested budget amount will be approved. 

However, counsel must recognize that they should be able to “beat the budget” in this respect.

By this point (judgment motions), objections to rulings, or responses to

objections, should be a great deal of electronic cut and paste, as it is doubtful that petitioner will

need to replicate research already performed. And, objections will already have been heard on

non-hearing issues – the vast majority of issues in the case. After two separate sets of briefing on

hearing issues, the court finds too remote that any further motions for reconsideration will be

necessary. Filing a certificate of appeal on issues should likewise not require much in the way of

new research and briefing. Thus, the court will cut co-counsel’s hours to 25. The remainder of

the hours will be approved; $4,000.00 will be deducted.

 The court will approve the prognosticated time for amending the Phase IV

budget. 

In sum, for Phase IV, non-travel, $202,810.00 was requested; $69,850.00 was

deducted, $132,960.00 is approved. 

Phase IV Travel

Certainly, a pre-hearing conference will be held, and it is very possible that

another case management hearing may be held. Moreover, the undersigned does not view four

trips to San Quentin, in preparation for an evidentiary hearing, to be excessive. However, no

resource counsel is approved at this time, and the $5,990.00 for those trips is disapproved. 

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 10 of 12
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

11

Discovery travel is a reasonable estimate. Trips to visit the client can be combined with expert

consultations since all are located in Northern California; the 14 hours for lead counsel will be

deducted ($2,240.00). There will not be two evidentiary hearings, but there may well be an

evidentiary hearing, and a hearing on objections/responses to objections. Two trips will be

approved.

In sum, $39,090.00 has been requested, $8,230.00 has been disapproved, and

$30,860.00 is approved.

Expert and Investigator Request

As discussed at hearing, and for those reasons (the undersigned will not specify

them in this public order due to work product concerns), the discussed psychologist request (the

second of two) is deducted by one-half ($9,000.00 deducted). Finally, the expert designated as

TBD is disapproved in his/her entirety as the undersigned sees no reasonable possibility of

success on the claim(s) pertinent to this expert. However, if counsel can make a showing to the

contrary, the undersigned will reconsider ($18,000.00 is deducted). The remaining experts are

reasonable both in hourly rate and estimated hours considering that these experts will need to

finalize opinions, be prepared for depositions (probably), be prepared for evidentiary hearing and

will appear at evidentiary hearing.

In sum, $78,000.00 was requested; $27,000.00 is disapproved, and $51,000.00 is

approved.

Budget Summary for Phases III and IV

Counsel requested a total of $627,085.00. The court disapproved (deducted)

$204,465.00. The court approves for Phases III and IV – a grand total of $422,620.00. The

budget also anticipates costs for “miscellaneous expenses, e.g., postage, fax, computerized legal

research and the like. The court will approve an additional $5,000.00 in this regard.

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 11 of 12
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

12

Miscellaneous

Assuming approval of this amended budget by the Capital Case Committee,

petitioner’s counsel are ordered not to exceed this budget without prior approval by the court.

The logistical provisions relating to voucher preparation et al. in the previous

budget order are confirmed. Counsel are reminded to submit timely vouchers. 

This Amended Budget Order shall be served on the Ninth Circuit Capital Case

Committee by chambers. The sealing order of the transcript of the October 20, 2006 hearing is

lifted only for the purpose of serving the capital case committee with a copy of the transcript.

The Clerk shall otherwise file and serve this order without attachments.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/27/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:gh:035

lewi0013.ambudg

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 81 Filed 10/27/06 Page 12 of 12