Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00013/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00013-3/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

MILTON OTIS LEWIS,

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

vs. DEATH PENALTY CASE

JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

It is time again in this case for petitioner’s counsel to prognosticate the future cost

of winding up this habeas corpus case in district court based on facts and events which are

largely unknowable, i.e., it is time to finalize the budget in this case.

A major difficulty in budgeting capital habeas cases is the fact that the “phases”

set forth in the model budgeting guidelines often contain events which overlap, or for one reason

or another due to the peculiarities in a case, the events normally associated with one phase occur

in another. Another misconception in the budgeting process is that petitioner always controls the

events which may incur substantial cost. For example, a respondent may, or may not, move for

summary judgment (as has happened in this case), and petitioner has no control over this event. 

Responding to the summary judgment will often necessitate significant expenditure.

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 66 Filed 10/31/05 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

Nevertheless, budgeting is a requirement and petitioner’s counsel will do the best

that they can to forecast expenditures using the software that is available to counsel, and with the

assistance of the Federal Defender’s Office. In this case, budgeting should encompass the

conclusion of Phase III and the completion of Phase IV. In other words, petitioner’s counsel

must attempt a budget to finish the case.

In so doing, petitioner’s counsel should budget for evidentiary hearing for those

claims for which a colorable basis exists for granting a motion for evidentiary hearing. 

Petitioner’s counsel should assume that at least some claims will be lost before the undersigned,

but that counsel will file objections to the district judge. A proposed budget shall be submitted

no later than November 22, 2005.

DATED: 10/31/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:gh:035

lewis13.bud

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 66 Filed 10/31/05 Page 2 of 2