Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05279/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05279-3/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

27

28

99dp5279ORePhaseIIICMC.bol.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL C. BOLIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Steven W. Ornoski, As Acting )

Warden of San Quentin )

State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. C.V. F-99-5279-REC 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO

FILE PHASE III BUDGET AND

SCHEDULING PHASE III CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DATE: January 18, 2006

TIME: 8:30 a.m. 

COURTROOM ONE

Petitioner Paul C. Bolin (“Bolin”) filed his Amended Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Amended Petition”) on January 19, 2005.

Respondent Steven W. Ornoski, As Acting Warden of San Quentin State

Prison (the “Warden”) filed his Answer to the Amended Petition on June

17, 2005. On September 29, 2005, this Court determined that the

Amended Petition was exhausted. Because Bolin’s counsel were newly

appointed to the case, they were not then prepared to commit

themselves to move forward with the litigation in its present form.

Accordingly, the Court granted Bolin up to and including December 12,

2005 to decide whether to file a motion to further amend the Amended

Petition. On December 8, 2005, Bolin notified the Court that he will

not request leave to amend the Amended Petition, but rather will

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 148 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 4
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 The Attorney Guide is posted on the web page for the District

Court.

99dp5279ORePhaseIIICMC.bol.wpd 2

proceed with the litigation in its present form. This decision brings

to a close Phase II of the litigation and commences Phase III.

As fully described in the Guide to Case Management and Budgeting

in Capital Cases for the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of

California (hereafter “Attorney Guide”),1 Phase III of capital habeas

litigation involves briefing of the petition, whereby the petitioner

prepares a comprehensive memorandum of points and authorities in

support of the claims alleged, the Warden prepares a comprehensive

memorandum of points and authorities opposing the claims alleged, and

the petitioner prepares a traverse responding to the arguments

advanced in the Warden’s opposition brief. In addition to merits

briefing, Phase III is dedicated to fact development, including

discovery, record expansion, and briefing a motion for an evidentiary

hearing. 

Since this case is subject to budgeting requirements mandated by

the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, it is incumbent upon Bolin,

through his attorneys, to prepare and submit a case management plan

and budget for Phase III. Although only the professional time and

expenses of private appointed co-counsel, Robert D. Bacon, will be

included in the case management plan and budget, the Court requires

disclosure of the time and expenses intended to be utilized by cocounsel, Assistant Federal Defender Allison Claire, as well. This

disclosure will assist the Court in determining adequacy of the case

management plan and the propriety of the division of labor within

Bolin’s litigation team. The Court finds that since budget

applications require disclosure of matters protected by the attorneyCase 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 148 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 4
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 Counsel for Bolin should not electronically file the

application for his Phase III budget, but rather submit it for filing

under seal by mail to allow Court staff to scan the document into the

electronic system.

3 As recited at ¶ 58 of the Attorney Guide, the motion shall not

recite any legal authority on the merits of the claims, but be limited

to identification of: (a) the claims for which a hearing is sought;

(b) an offer of proof as to the evidence sought to be presented; and

(c) the legal grounds for the evidentiary hearing, including reason(s)

Petitioner did not present the evidence in state proceedings according

to cases construing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). 

4 Discovery conducted during Phase III of the litigation is

designed to develop facts, and is distinguished from discovery

conducted during Phase IV in anticipation of an evidentiary hearing.

99dp5279ORePhaseIIICMC.bol.wpd 3

client and/or work product privileges, the need for confidentiality

is inherent in the budgeting process. Accordingly, Bolin’s Phase III

case management plan and budget will be filed with the Court under

seal.2

The case management plan will include proposed expenditures for

filing a comprehensive brief in support of the Amended Petition and

a Traverse, as well as a motion for an evidentiary hearing and reply

brief. For the scope and breadth of an evidentiary hearing motion,

the parties are directed to consult the Attorney Guide.3 In addition,

the Phase III case management plan should include efforts to conduct

factual development discovery4 and expand the record, if appropriate.

It is anticipated that factual development discovery and record

expansion, if any, will occur prior to Bolin’s filing a motion for an

evidentiary hearing. 

At the Phase III Case Management Conference, the Court will

address the completion of these various tasks. As noted above,

Bolin’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of the Amended

Petition shall be comprehensive. In this Court, the memorandum of

points and authorities in support of a capital habeas petition

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 148 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 4
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

99dp5279ORePhaseIIICMC.bol.wpd 4

provides a petitioner with the opportunity to thoroughly develop the

legal arguments in support of the merits of each claim. The Warden’s

memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the petition

shall allege all affirmative defenses, including procedural default

and Teague bars. The parties are admonished that procedural defenses

will not be addressed prior to the Court’s review of the merits of

Bolin’s Amended Petition. The parties should be prepared to discuss

briefing and other schedules for all of the pertinent Phase III

litigation tasks, including informal fact development discovery at the

case management conference hearing. Since a significant number of

discovery issues can be resolved informally by the parties, it may be

that discovery identified in the proposed budget and budget

application ultimately may require less time to complete than

originally contemplated. The Court’s approval of a budget item may

be conditional on the complexity of the task and downward adjustment

may be made during voucher processing, as necessary.

The Phase III Case Management Conference will be conducted

telephonically at 8:30 a.m. on January 18, 2006, with counsel for

Bolin responsible for arranging and initiating the call. Ten court

days prior to the date scheduled for the conference, Bolin shall

submit his application for a Phase III case management plan and budget

under seal by mail, as well as by facsimile and/or e-mail

transmission. Case management matters will be discussed with both

parties at the conference. Matters related solely to budgeting will

be conducted ex parte, with only Bolin’s interests represented. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

Robert E. Coyle

 United States District Judge

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 148 Filed 12/15/05 Page 4 of 4