Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00705-16/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

GLENN CORNWELL, JR., 

Petitioner, No. 2:06-cv-00705 JAM KJN

vs. DEATH PENALTY CASE

WARDEN,

 San Quentin State Prison, 

 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Respondent requests the court defer ruling on the procedural default issues raised

in his May 17, 2011 Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 79.) Respondent seeks to address only the

exhaustion and statute of limitations issues in his reply brief due October 7, 2011. Respondent

states that petitioner’s counsel does not oppose this request. 

Petitioner’s 129-page opposition to the motion to dismiss focuses largely on

procedural default issues. (Dkt. No. 76.) As respondent points out, litigation of procedural

default is likely to be time-consuming, in part because it may involve reaching the substance of

many of petitioner’s claims to resolve exceptions to the procedural default rule for cause and

prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. In fact, in his opposition to the motion to dismiss, petitioner

////

Case 2:06-cv-00705-TLN-CSK Document 80 Filed 10/04/11 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

also requests deferral of a ruling on the miscarriage of justice issues until the merits are resolved. 

(Dkt. No. 76 at 49-50.) 

This court agrees that efficient resolution of the petition is best served by waiting

to resolve procedural default issues. Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED as follows:

1. Respondent’s September 29, 2011 Request for Deferred Ruling on Procedural

Default is granted. Respondent’s reply brief shall address only the issues of exhaustion and

statute of limitations.

2. On October 20, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in courtroom #25, the undersigned will

hear argument on the exhaustion and statute of limitations issues and hold a scheduling

conference. 

3. Prior to October 17, 2011, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a

proposed schedule of events for addressing upcoming issues, including resolution of the section

2254(d) standards, resolution of procedural default issues, any motions for discovery, any motion

for an evidentiary hearing, and the merits of petitioner’s claims. By the close of business on

October 17, 2011, the parties shall file a joint statement describing any agreements regarding

scheduling these proceedings. Whether or not the parties agree that the section 2254(d) issues

shall be addressed next, they shall propose a briefing schedule for doing so. If the parties are

unable to agree on a schedule, they shall also file separate statements setting out their positions

on scheduling, with specific reference to the effect of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388

(2011), on all aspects of this proceeding. 

DATED: October 3, 2011

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

cornwell mtd arg.or

Case 2:06-cv-00705-TLN-CSK Document 80 Filed 10/04/11 Page 2 of 2