Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401-27/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

WILLIAM A. PROCTOR, No. CIV S-96-1401-JAM-CMK

Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

vs. ORDER

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., et al.,

Respondents.

 /

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

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 270 Filed 05/28/08 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

The first motion for an extension of time did not list specific reasons in support of 1

the request because “respondent readily agreed to the requested extension of time.” 

2

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: 1

. . . 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

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 270 Filed 05/28/08 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

Counsel states only that the amended petition “is now due.” 2

Counsel do not state whether respondents agree to a 90-day extension of time. 3

This time is in addition to the time that has passed since the scheduling order 4

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. 

3

habeas case pending in this court.

2

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 3

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.

4

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.

DATED: May 27, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 270 Filed 05/28/08 Page 3 of 3