Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02089/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02089-3/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

DUANE HOLLOWAY, No. CIV S-05-2089-FCD-CMK

Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

vs. ORDER

STEVE ORNOSKI, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, brings this petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Upon review of this case following reassignment to the undersigned on March 1, 2006, the court finds it appropriate to vacate the

portion of the court’s February 27, 2006, order (Doc. 8, sealed) concerning the budget for this

case because it is not consistent with the capital habeas case management policy promulgated by

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. The appointment of Mark Greenberg, Esq., as second

counsel for petitioner is not affected by this order. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02089-DJC-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/28/06 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

To the extent counsel is not familiar with the automated budgeting process,

1

counsel may contact the chambers of the undersigned or the Office of the Circuit Executive for

the Ninth Circuit for more information.

2

It is the intent of this court to work with counsel in an effort to manage the costs

of capital habeas litigation. In furtherance of this objective, petitioner’s counsel will be required

to prepare and submit budgets for tasks to be performed by attorneys and paralegals and for

expenses to be incurred for investigative, expert, and other services. A separate budget will be 1

required for each of four phases of this litigation: Phase I (appointment, record review, and

preliminary investigation); Phase II (petition preparation, answer, and exhaustion); Phase III

(merits briefing, fact development discovery, and motion for evidentiary hearing); and Phase IV

(pre-evidentiary hearing discovery, evidentiary hearing, and final briefing). 

This case is currently set for hearing on petitioner’s motion for equitable tolling

on April 26, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., in Redding, California. Following argument by all parties on

petitioner’s motion, the court will excuse respondent’s counsel and conduct an ex parte

conference with petitioner’s counsel regarding the budget. Petitioner’s counsel shall submit to

this court a proposed Phase I budget no later than April 19, 2006. The court will review the

proposed budget, engage in appropriate ex parte discussion with petitioner’s counsel at the April

26, 2006, hearing, and thereafter will enter an order regarding the budget. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The portion of the court’s February 27, 2006, order concerning the budget

for this case is vacated;

2. Counsel for petitioner shall submit a proposed Phase I budget, consistent

with the automated budget process established by the Judicial Council, by April 19, 2006; and

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02089-DJC-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/28/06 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

3. The appointment of Mark Greenberg, Esq., as second counsel for

petitioner is not affected by this order.

DATED: March 27, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02089-DJC-JDP Document 12 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 3