Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-06252/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-06252-1/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

96dp6252.OFollPrelimCMC.Ray.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE RAY, JR., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Steven W. Ornoski, as Acting )

Warden of San Quentin State )

Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-96-6252-AWI

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DATE: February 22, 2006

TIME: 8:30 a.m.

COURTROOM TWO

This matter came on for a case management conference in the above

entitled Court on February 22, 2006 at 8:30 a.m., the Honorable

Anthony W. Ishii, presiding. Petitioner Clarence Ray, Jr. (“Ray”) was

represented by Assistant Federal Defender Tim Schardl, on behalf of

the Selection Board of the Eastern District of California. Respondent

Steven W. Ornoski, as Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the

“Warden”), was represented by Deputy Attorney General Marcia Fay.

After having been on state exhaustion for nearly nine years, Ray,

on December 28, 2005, requested the Court to refer his federal case

to the Selection Board of the Eastern District of California for

recommendation of qualified appointed counsel. The Court granted

Ray’s request on December 30, 2005, and additionally directed the

parties to appear telephonically for a preliminary case management

Case 1:96-cv-06252-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/24/06 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

96dp6252.OFollPrelimCMC.Ray.wpd 2

conference. The purpose of the hearing was to hear from both parties

regarding the status of pending state exhaustion proceedings, from the

Selection Board concerning the status of its recommendation of

suitable counsel for Ray, and from the Warden regarding any issues

about proceeding in federal court during the pendency of state

exhaustion proceedings.

Both Mr. Schardl and Ms. Fay responded that state exhaustion

proceedings remain pending with no dates or hearings scheduled in the

California Supreme Court. The last activity in the case was in

February of 2003. 

With respect to appointment of counsel, Mr. Schardl informed the

Court that the Federal Defender’s Office is trying to determine

whether it will be able to represent Ray in light of a sudden influx

of new capital federal cases. Since Ray is housed in a prison under

the jurisdiction of the state of Michigan, and that is where Mr.

Schardl states he will continue to be housed, the Selection Board is

considering the recommendation of out-of-state counsel for the

appointment. The determination of whether the Federal Defender’s

Office will represent Ray likely will be made by March 1, 2006, the

same date the Office will determine its availability for an

appointment in another capital case pending in the Fresno Division of

the Eastern District. Other than a determination as to when the

Federal Defender’s Office will decide its availability for appointment

in this matter, Mr. Schardl informed the Court that the Selection

Board cannot provide an estimate as to when a recommendation for

appointment of counsel may be made.

Ms. Fay informed the Court that the Warden has no objection to

the appointment of federal counsel during the pendency of state

Case 1:96-cv-06252-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/24/06 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

96dp6252.OFollPrelimCMC.Ray.wpd 3

exhaustion proceedings. All defenses and objections on the grounds

of the statute of limitations and/or procedural default, however, are

reserved by the Warden, and will be advanced at the time Ray files his

federal petition, as deemed necessary.

Pending the recommendation of counsel to represent Ray in these

federal proceedings, Mr. Schardl indicated the willingness of the

Federal Defender’s Office to file quarterly status reports of the

progress of the state exhaustion proceedings, as the Court previously

ordered. The Court additionally directs the Selection Board to

provide an informal status report on its progress in locating

qualified counsel. The informal status report may be in the form of

a letter addressed to the Court and transmitted within five calendar

days from the filing of this order. If a recommendation of counsel

cannot be made within 90 days from Ray’s original request for

appointment of counsel (December 28, 2005), the Court will require a

follow-up status report letter explaining the circumstances of the

delay no later than March 31, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 22, 2006 

 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

 Anthony W. Ishii

 United States District Judge

Case 1:96-cv-06252-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 02/24/06 Page 3 of 3