Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05241/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05241-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

QUIN DENVIR, Bar #49374

Federal Defender

ALLISON CLAIRE, Bar #170138

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorneys For Petitioner

RAY LEE VAUGHN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY LEE VAUGHN,

Petitioner,

v.

D. ADAMS,

Respondent.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CIV 01-5241 OWW DLB HC

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING

TIME TO FILE PETITIONER'S

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE: PROCEDURAL

DEFAULT

Petitioner, RAY LEE VAUGHN, and respondent, D. ADAMS, by and

through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as

follows:

1. Respondent's supplemental brief regarding procedural

default was filed on February 24, 2005. The deadline for petitioner's

supplemental brief was thereafter extended, by stipulation and order,

to May 12, 2005. For the reasons set forth below, the parties agree

that a second continuance is necessary and appropriate.

2. Pursuant to Bennett v. Mueller, 322 F.3d 573, 585-86 (9th

Cir. 2003), petitioner must place the affirmative defense of procedural

Case 1:01-cv-05241-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/05/05 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

Vaughn stip/order 2 2

nd EOT

default at issue by asserting specific factual allegations to

demonstrate the inadequacy of the state's procedural rule. To meet

this initial burden of production, petitioner is gathering

documentation of non-capital habeas cases in which the rule of In re

Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756 (1953), could have been, but was not, applied by

the California Supreme Court during the general time period of

petitioner's purported default. Under Bennett, once petitioner makes

this showing the burden will shift to the state to prove that the

procedural rule is regularly and consistently applied.

3. In order to make the required showing, petitioner must

undertake extensive review of California Supreme Court closed habeas

case files, and compare the petitions against the direct appeals in

each case. Very little of the necessary data, and few of the necessary

documents, are available on-line or in published opinions. 

4. As set forth below, petitioner has been diligent in

attempting to gather the necessary data and documents:

a. Beginning in early March, counsel identified a pool of

approximately 600 California habeas cases that had been decided by the

California Supreme Court in 1997. We determined that approximately 450

of these were related to federal habeas cases filed in the Eastern

District. Online review of federal dockets and (where available)

Findings and Recommendations identified, by process of elimination,

approximately 20 cases which could involve petitioners similarly

situated to Mr. Vaughn. 

b. Specified portions of the record, filed in the federal

cases, were then requested from district court archives in Sacramento

and Fresno, and copies ordered. Following another round of preliminary

review and elimination, original state court documents were ordered

Case 1:01-cv-05241-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/05/05 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

Vaughn stip/order 2 3

nd EOT

from the Fifth District Court of Appeal and the California Supreme

Court during the last week of April. The case files are archived. 

Those documents have not yet been recieved.

5. Petitioner requires additional time to review the

documents already received, receive the documents ordered but not yet

received, screen all cases for their applicability to the issues

presented in this case, and conduct follow-up research as necessary. 

6. For these reasons, petitioner respectfully requests a 30-

day extension of time, up to and including June 12, 2005, in which to

prepare and file his supplemental brief. Respondent has no objection

to this request.

7. Counsel for respondent, Deputy Attorney General Justain

P. Riley, has authorized the undersigned to sign this stipulation

electronically on his behalf.

Dated: May 5, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

QUIN DENVIR

Federal Defender

/s/ Allison Claire 

ALLISON CLAIRE

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorney for Petitioner

RAY LEE VAUGHN

/s/ Justain P. Riley 

JUSTAIN P. RILEY

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Respondents

D. ADAMS 

Case 1:01-cv-05241-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/05/05 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

Vaughn stip/order 2 4

nd EOT

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, and for good

cause shown, petitioner's request for a second extension of time is

hereby GRANTED. Petitioner's supplemental brief regarding procedural

default shall be filed no later than June 12, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05241-OWW -DLB Document 45 Filed 05/05/05 Page 4 of 4