Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-00628/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-00628-3/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

JERRY GRANT FRYE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-99-0628 LKK KJM

vs. DEATH PENALTY CASE

STEVEN W. ORNOSKI,

Acting Warden of San Quentin

State Prison,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

In a March 14, 2006 order, the undersigned requested additional briefing on the

“failed to develop”standard of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Additional briefing is necessary for two

reasons. First, this court is required to determine whether or not petitioner “failed to develop the

factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings” before considering whether or not to order an

evidentiary hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). Second, the parties’ briefs on the issue were not

sufficient to make that determination as to each claim upon which petitioner seeks an evidentiary

hearing. 

Both parties have responded to the March 14 order. Respondent simply seeks an

extension of time to submit the supplemental brief. Petitioner, on the other hand, objects to the

order in full. Petitioner argues supplemental briefing is inappropriate because, among other

Case 2:99-cv-00628-KJM-CKD Document 207 Filed 04/04/06 Page 1 of 2
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

things, it delays the case, puts respondent in a better litigation position, violates the “spirit of

Local Rule 78-230(c),” and overlooks petitioner’s prior briefing of the issue.

This is not the first time parties have been given an opportunity to address an

issue more than once. For example, this court gave petitioner numerous opportunities to

convince it that discovery was necessary on claim 37. See Mar. 22, 2004 Order. Further, the

parties have a right to be heard on important issues in this proceeding, particularly when those

issues are subject to recent changes in decisional law. With respect to petitioner’s motion to

amend the petition, the district judge noted that it may be unfair to rule against a party on an issue

that was not fully briefed because the party did not have notice the issue would be scrutinized by

the court. See Nov. 8, 2002 Order.

This court has the authority, and sometimes the responsibility, to allow the parties

to brief completely issues before it. Petitioner’s March 28, 2006 Objections to Order filed March

14, 2006 are not well taken. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Good cause appearing, respondent’s March 24, 2006 request for an extension

of time to file the supplemental brief ordered on March 14, 2006 is granted. By April 24, 2006,

respondent shall file a supplemental brief addressing whether petitioner failed to develop the

factual basis of each claim upon which petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing. 

2. Petitioner’s March 28, 2006 request to vacate or modify the March 14, 2006

order is denied.

DATED: April 3, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

frye.evisuppbrf.or

Case 2:99-cv-00628-KJM-CKD Document 207 Filed 04/04/06 Page 2 of 2