Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401-14/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

1. This Court also indicated that a discovery conference would be held on May 24,

2007, if deemed necessary and initiated by petitioner. In light of this request for an extension

of time, such a conference would be premature at this time. 

1

JAMES S. THOMSON

California SBN 79658

Attorney and Counselor at Law

819 Delaware Street 

Berkeley, California 94710

Telephone: (510) 525-9123

Facsimile: (510) 525-9124

JOLIE LIPSIG

Attorney at Law

California SBN 104644

1006 4th St., Suite 301

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-6995

Facsimile: (916) 443-7081

Attorneys for Petitioner

WILLIAM A. PROCTOR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. PROCTOR, ) No. CIV-S-96-1401 DFL CMK

)

Petitioner, ) DEATH PENALTY CASE

)

 )

v. ) APPLICATION AND ORDER

) FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

)

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, Warden of )

California State Prison at San Quentin, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

At a status conference held on February 13, 2007, this Court directed petitioner to

notice and file a motion for leave to conduct discovery by May 18, 2007. 

1

Counsel for petitioner hereby request a thirty (30) day extension of time to notice

and file their discovery motion. The extension of time is necessary for the following

reasons:

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 227 Filed 05/25/07 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

27

28

2

1. On April 6, 2007, counsel for respondent provided counsel for petitioner with

approximately 700 additional pages of informal discovery documents from the Shasta

County Sheriff’s Department and the Shasta County District Attorney. Petitioner’s

counsel have now had all post-conviction documents organized and indexed in order to

identify which documents were disclosed during pretrial and trial discovery. Of the

documents provided, approximately 620 were not previously turned over to the defense.

2. Counsel continue to review the newly-disclosed documents to determine

whether they contain information that warrants further discovery, and if so, whether that

additional discovery may be sought informally or will require formal discovery. They

have not yet completed that review, however, due to the large volume of newly-disclosed

documents, as well as lead and co-counsel’s significant pre-existing obligations in other

cases. 

3. Counsel for Mr. Proctor are also still in the process of ascertaining the scope of

the formal discovery necessary and relevant to the equal protection aspect of Claim EE of

the Amended Petition. As discussed at the last case management conference, the parties

attempted to obtain, through informal discovery, all discovery provided the petitioners in 

Frye v. Ornoski, Civ. S-99-628 LKK/JFM and Riel v. Ornoski, Civ. S-01-507-LKK/KJM,

on a related claim involving charging decisions in death penalty cases. Counsel for

respondents was unable to obtain that discovery informally. A review of the dockets in the

Frye and Riel cases indicate a substantial amount of litigation was needed regarding the

discovery at issue. Counsel for petitioner hope to avoid similar protracted, and most likely

duplicative, litigation in this case. To that end, counsel are obtaining and reviewing all

publically available documents regarding the discovery in Frye and Riel in order to

narrowly tailor their formal discovery request, but have not yet completed that review. 

4. Counsel for petitioner have contacted counsel for respondent, Brian Smiley, to

discuss the proposed extension of time. Mr. Smiley indicated that respondent has no

objection to this extension of time.

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 227 Filed 05/25/07 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

27

28

3

For all the reasons stated above, petitioner requests that he be granted an additional

thirty (30) days, to an including June 18, 2007 in which to notice and file a motion for 

leave to conduct discovery.

DATED: May 24, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

/s/JAMES S. THOMSON

/s/ JOLIE LIPSIG

Attorneys for Petitioner

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 23, 2007

/s/ CRAIG M. KELLISON 

Craig M. Kellison

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 227 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 3