Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492-14/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD J. VIEIRA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Vincent Cullen, as Warden of San Quentin )

State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. 1:05-cv-1492-OWW

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER MODIFYINGBRIEFING SCHEDULE

FOR PHASE III OF THE LITIGATION

 

Petitioner Richard J. Vieira (“Vieira”) filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on October

29, 2006 (doc. 37). On October 31, 2006, he filed a state petition for habeas corpus in the California

Supreme Court (In re Richard J. Vieira, S147688). The California Supreme Court denied Vieira’s

October 31, 2006 state habeas corpus petition on June 24, 2009. 

On December 9, 2009, Respondent Vincent Cullens, as Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the

“Warden”) filed an answer reserving the Teague-bar defense. He filed an amended, complete answer

on February 2, 2010 (doc. 74). In an earlier joint statement (doc. 68), the parties agreed that the federal

petition is fully exhausted. 

On February 18, 2010, a briefing schedule for Phase III of the litigation was established. The

parties were advised that Phase III will end when Vieira’s anticipated motion for an evidentiary hearing

is resolved. Resolution of the evidentiary hearing motion includes a determination of the merits of

claims for which evidentiary development is requested. Record based claims also may be resolved on

the merits during Phase III. Based on the briefing schedule approved, it is anticipated that Phase III will

05dp1492.OModPhaseIIIBriefingSch.Vie.wpd 1

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 81 Filed 07/22/10 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

27

28

reach a culmination in October 2010. If an evidentiary hearing is ordered, the case will progress to

Phase IV.

On July20, 2010, Vieira requested a modification ofthe previouslyestablished briefing schedule

on account of significant vision problems suffered by co-lead counsel, Wesley A. Van Winkle due to

bilateral subcapsular cataracts. While the cataracts were diagnosed in March, 2010, the two, separate

surgeries were delayed until June 2010. In Mr. Van Winkle’s supporting declaration, he reports that he

is currently recovered his vision, but has fallen behind in all his work due to the vision loss, doctor’s

appointments, surgeries, and recovery time.

To justify the need for an extension, Vieira also relies on the extensive case-load of his attorneys,

Mr. Van Winkle and Assistant Federal Defender Timothy J. Foley, scheduling conflicts with

investigators who also have other litigation commitments, and jury duty of Mr. Foley. Mr. Van Winkle

avers that he telephoned Deputy Attorney General Catherine Chatman, who represents Respondent

Vincent Cullen, as Warden of San Quentin State Prison, to ascertain whether she would oppose the

originally conceived request for a 30-day extension of time for Vieira’s brief. Ms. Chatman agreed to

the 30-day extension so long as the entire briefing schedule were to be moved back the same number

of days.

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING

1. Vieira’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of his petition shall be filed on or

before September 1, 2010.

2. The Warden’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the petition shall be filed

on or before March 4, 2011.

3. Vieira shall file a reply brief on or before June 1, 2011.

4. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer about the need to conduct discovery. It is

anticipated that motions for formal discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases or record expansion pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases will be

presented and resolved without altering the schedule for briefing the petition.

5. Vieira shall file his motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules Governing

§ 2254 Cases on or before July 6, 2011. The evidentiarymotion shall be limited to identification

05dp1492.OModPhaseIIIBriefingSch.Vie.wpd 2

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 81 Filed 07/22/10 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

27

28

of: (a) the claims for which a hearing is sought; (b) an offer of proof as to the evidence sought

to be presented; (c) a brief statement of the legal grounds for the evidentiary hearing; and (d) an

explanation of diligence exercised in state court to develop the claims before the California

Supreme Court (see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). In light of the briefing of the petition, legal

analysis and citation of authorities in support of claims for which a hearing is sought will not be

necessary.

6. The Warden shall file his opposition to the evidentiary hearing motion on or before August 8,

2011.

7. Vieira shall file his reply to the opposition on or before September 7, 2011.

SO ORDERED.

Date: July 21, 2010 

 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 Oliver W. Wanger

United States District Judge

05dp1492.OModPhaseIIIBriefingSch.Vie.wpd 3

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 81 Filed 07/22/10 Page 3 of 3