Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00223/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00223-16/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH MARTIN DANKS, 

 Petitioner,

 v.

OAK SMITH, Warden of California State 

Prison at San Quentin, 

 Respondent.

1

Case No. 1:11-cv-00223-JLT

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER MODIFYING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE

Respondent Oak Smith, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin, through 

counsel Deputy Attorney General Justain Riley, moves to modify the case schedule to extend 

the time to file his answer to the underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition from June 8, 2023 to a 

date thirty (30) days from the date several presently unavailable reporter’s transcripts, sealed in 

the state record, are lodged under seal in this proceeding and available for distribution to 

Respondent’s counsel. (Doc. 82 at 1-2.) This is Respondent’s first request for extension of 

time. (Id.) 

Counsel for Respondent represents that counsel for Petitioner, Melissa Burkhart, does 

not oppose the requested relief. (Id.) Counsel for Respondent further represents that counsel 

for Petitioner will request the Court unseal the transcripts upon lodging thereof in this case, for 

1 Oak Smith, named as acting warden of San Quentin State Prison in January 2023, is substituted as Respondent in 

place of his predecessor wardens. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 

Case 1:11-cv-00223-JLT Document 83 Filed 06/02/23 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

27

28

2

distribution to Respondent’s counsel. (Id.) 

The Court finds good cause to modify the current case schedule (see Doc. 81), 

consistent with that stipulated to above by the parties, and as provided below. 

Accordingly, 

1. Respondent shall file his Answer to the § 2254 Petition in conformance with 

Rule 5(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, within THIRTY (30) days from the date the 

Court issues an order unsealing for distribution to Respondent’s counsel the presently 

unavailable reporter’s transcripts sealed in the state record. 

2. Petitioner’s counsel shall PROMPTLY lodge the sealed state transcripts in this 

proceeding and thereupon request unsealing for distribution to Respondent’s counsel. 

Petitioner’s counsel shall a written status report with the Court in the event the sealed 

transcripts are not lodged and the unsealing request is not filed in the case docket within 

THIRTY (30) days of the filed date of this order. 

3. Petitioner shall file his Reply to the Answer within SIXTY (60) days of the 

filed date thereof.

4. Within ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) days of the filed date of the Reply to 

the Answer, the parties shall file their substantive full scope briefs in support of and opposition 

to the Petition. 

5. The Court will NOT entertain a request for summary judgment. 

6. Motions for discovery, expansion of the record, and/or evidentiary hearing will 

be entertained only AFTER the Court’s §2254(d) analysis of the federal claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2023 

Case 1:11-cv-00223-JLT Document 83 Filed 06/02/23 Page 2 of 2