Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401-7/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

Through their cross-motions, the parties seek adjudications on the merits of 1

petitioner’s guilt-phase claims. The court, therefore, will treat the motions as merits briefs.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

vs. ORDER

EDDIE YLST, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant to court order, the parties have filed

cross-motions for summary judgment on guilt-phase claims raised in the petition. Specifically, 1

pending before the court are the following:

Respondents’ cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 176);

Petitioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment (Doc. 189);

Petitioner’s opposition to respondent’s cross-motion (Doc. 188);

Respondents’ opposition to petitioner’s cross-motion (Doc. 194);

Petitioner’s motion pursuant to Rule 56(f) (Docs. 185 & 186);

Respondents’ reply and opposition to petitioner’s Rule 56(f) motion ((Doc. 193);

Petitioner’s reply (Doc. 198).

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 199 Filed 05/10/06 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

2

In their cross-motion, respondents seek adjudications, as a matter of law, on

Claims A through T, to the extent such claims have not already been dismissed. In his crossmotion, petitioner seeks adjudications on Claims C, D, F through H, J, M through O, and Q

through S. As to Claim A, petitioner asserts through his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f)

motion that additional discovery is required in order to oppose respondent’s cross-motion. 

At the time respondents filed their cross-motion, findings and recommendations

had been issued recommending that a number of claims be dismissed. Respondents filed their

cross-motion under the assumption that the findings and recommendations would be adopted in

full but requested the opportunity to brief the merits of any claims the court ultimately declined

to dismiss. On March 30, 2005, the court issued an order adopting some, but not all, of the

findings and recommendations. In particular, and relevant to the pending cross-motions, the

court dismissed Claims B, E, I, K (in part), and T. The court, however, declined to dismiss

Claims K (except that portion of the claim raising a causal connection argument) and L.

In order to complete briefing on the merits of the guilt-phase claims, the court

finds that additional briefing is required. Specifically, respondents will be required to submit

supplemental briefing on Claim K, except to the extent such claim has been dismissed, and

Claim L. Petitioner will be given an opportunity to respond. The hearing currently scheduled

for May 17, 2006, will be re-set to June 13, 2006, at 11:00 a.m. Petitioner’s counsel are

requested to remain available after the hearing for an ex parte discussion of budget matters. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 199 Filed 05/10/06 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 14 days of the date of this order, respondent shall file a

supplemental brief addressing Claim K, except to the extent such claim has been dismissed, and

Claim L;

2. Within 7 days after service of respondents’ supplemental brief, petitioner

may file a response. and

3. The hearing, currently set for May 17, 2006, is re-set to June 13, 2006, at

11: 00 a.m. in Redding, California.

DATED: May 9, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 199 Filed 05/10/06 Page 3 of 3