Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00013/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00013-12/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, ORDER

Respondent.

 /

Two budget items will be addressed in this order: (1) approval of the January 24,

2007 voucher, and (2) further amendment of the budget order to permit investigative assistance

during Phase IV of this case.

The undersigned’s Amended Budget order filed October 27, 2006 was just

recently approved by the Ninth Circuit Capital Case Budget Committee. Within that order,

reference was made to the fact that certain Phase III legal briefing expenses had probably (but not

for sure) been already billed and expended (except for Objections to Findings and

Recommendations), but that a certain amount “most probably preparation for, and attendance at,

the [motion for summary judgment] hearing” had yet to be billed. The Amended Budget order

had also cut the hearing and preparation expense request of counsel for that summary judgment

hearing from a total requested of $11, 400.00 to $5,700.00. However, the Amended Budget

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 92 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 The substance of this request for reconsideration was informally submitted to the 1

Capital Case Committee prior to the approval of the Amended Budget order.

2

order cautioned in footnote 4 that the $5,700.00 figure might be expanded upon close review of

the voucher. 

It turned out that not all briefing for the summary judgment motion had been

included in the previously billed amount. A review of the voucher submitted shows that

$1,290.00 has been billed for the Reply brief. The undersigned has also totaled the preparation

for, travel to, and attendance at the summary judgment hearing – a billing that was expected in

the current voucher. That amount totals $6,974.00, a little over $1000.00 from the budgeted

$5,700.00. If all of counsel’s requested expenditures associated with the summary judgment

hearing on the present voucher were to be approved, that amount would be $8,264.00. 

Given that the undersigned believed that the $5700.00 figure approved might have

to be expanded, and given the relatively small amount of unanticipated briefing expense, the

undersigned expands the approved budget in this category by $2,564.00 for a total of $8,264.00.

The remainder of the voucher items appear to be within budget prognostications at

this time and will be approved.

The second item of discussion involves petitioner’s counsel December 4, 2006

request for reconsideration regarding the unnamed investigator request. At the time of the

hearing on the budget, the undersigned was under the impression that this expense was related to

the investigator/expert on forensic crime scene issues for which the undersigned had found no

present merit. The request for reconsideration provides that in reality, the investigator requested

was a general purpose investigator who would be needed to assist counsel on penalty

phase/evidentiary hearing issues, and possibly some guilt phase ineffective assistance issues. 

Counsel requested that the entire $29,500.00 attributed to the expense for this investigator be

reinstated.1

\\\\\

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 92 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Although the undersigned agrees that some investigator work is necessary, and

can be more efficiently performed than if counsel performs this work, the undersigned does not

agree that $29,500.00 is an appropriate figure. Much basic investigation (especially for the

penalty phase) has been expended already. This case is approaching evidentiary hearing. The

“find the evidence” phase of the investigation should be over at this point, or nearly completed. 

While some of this investigation might have to be refreshed, and certain logistical tasks are

inherently required for an effective evidentiary hearing, e.g., serving subpoenas, otherwise

arranging for witness appearances, these tasks should not total approximately $30,000.00. The

undersigned will amend the Amended Budget order further to permit an additional $10,000.00 in

investigator expenses. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s Counsels’ January 24, 2007 voucher is approved;

2. The Amended Budget order of October 27, 2006 is further amended to permit

an additional Phase III “briefing” and “hearing” expense of $2,564.00, and an investigator

expense of $10,000.00.

The Clerk shall serve this order on the Ninth Circuit Capital Case Committee as

well as the parties. 

Dated:3/9/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:gh

lewi0013.ambudg

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 92 Filed 03/09/07 Page 3 of 3