Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01466/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01466-14/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN DAVID CATLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden of California State 

Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent.

1

Case No. 1:07-cv-01466-LJO-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 

PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED 

APPLICATION FOR FIRST EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

(Doc. No. 89) 

Before the court is a motion by petitioner Steven David Catlin, through appointed CJA 

counsel Saor Stetler and Richard Novak, to extend the deadline for filing his reply to 

respondent’s answering merits brief and opposition to petitioner’s motion for evidentiary 

development, from the current November 30, 2016 to January 31, 2017. 

Counsel for petitioner state the requested relief is in the interest of justice because (i) 

Proposition 62 on the November 8, 2016 California General Election Ballot, if adopted, could 

moot the instant petition; and (ii) given the complexity of this case the reply brief cannot be 

completed in the three weeks available following the election and prior to the current deadline.

(See Doc. No. 89-1.) 

Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Novak, represents that counsel for respondent, deputy 

 

1

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Ron Davis, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, is substituted as respondent in 

place of his predecessor wardens.

Case 1:07-cv-01466-LJO-SAB Document 90 Filed 10/21/16 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

27

28

2

attorney general Stephen G. Herndon, does not object to the requested extension. (See Doc. No.

89-1 at ¶ 9.) 

The court finds good cause for a reasonable extension of time sufficient for completion of 

petitioner’s reply brief following the election results, but not for the length of time requested. 

Having considered the record and moving papers including the argument of petitioner’s 

counsel that the case is complex, the documents are voluminous and the reply brief is to address 

respondent’s opposition both on the merits and to petitioner’s motion for evidentiary 

development, the court is unpersuaded the request sixty day extension is necessary. Counsel has 

significant and long-lived familiarity with this proceeding including its claims, defenses, merits 

arguments and scheduled deadlines. Merits briefing was originally scheduled in April 2013. 

(See Doc. No. 49.) Petitioner’s noted motion was filed on June 30, 2015. (See Doc. No. 84.) 

Respondent’s answering brief on the merits and in opposition to petitioner’s motion for 

evidentiary development was filed on June 1, 2016 (see Doc. No. 88), one month before 

Proposition 62 qualified for the ballot. 

Furthermore, counsel does not explain what portion of the work on the reply brief has 

been completed and what portion remains to be completed. Notably, the instant extension 

request, though the first on the reply brief, is the fifth such request since proceedings were 

reinitiated on April 5, 2013 following state court exhaustion.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, petitioner’s unopposed motion for first extension of 

time to file his reply to respondent’s answering brief on the merits and in opposition to 

petitioner’s motion for evidentiary development is GRANTED-IN-PART to and including

January 9, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01466-LJO-SAB Document 90 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 2