Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02534/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02534-6/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

1

__________________________________________________________________________________________

_______

Stipulation And Proposed Order To Extend Time To Respond

To Court’s Scheduling Order Dated March 27, 2007

 CV 06-02534 LKK GGH

JOSEPH J. WISEMAN, ESQ., CSBN 107403

JOSEPH J. WISEMAN, P. C.

 1477 Drew Avenue, Suite 106

 Davis, California 95618

 Telephone: 530.759.0700 

 Facsimile: 530.759.0800

Attorney for Defendant

FRANCISCO PEREZ MEDINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

FRANCISCO PEREZ MEDINA,

 Petitioner,

vs.

M. CRAMER, ET AL.,

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV 06-02534 LKK GGH P

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND

TIME TO RESPOND TO COURT’S

SCHEDULING ORDER DATED MARCH

27, 2007

It is hereby stipulated and agreed to between petitioner, FRANCISCO PEREZ MEDINA,

through his counsel of record, Joseph J. Wiseman, and respondent, M. CRAMER, through his

counsel of record, Patrick James Whalen, Deputy Attorney General, California Attorney

General’s Office, that petitioner shall have an additional forty-five days from September 8, 2007

to respond to the Court’s Scheduling Order dated March 27, 2007.

The parties have entered this Stipulation on the grounds that petitioner’s counsel

incorrectly calendared the due date for petitioner’s response, and, consequently, failed to file the

response on or before September 8, 2006. 

Case 2:06-cv-02534-LKK -GGH Document 25 Filed 09/13/07 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

2

__________________________________________________________________________________________

_______

Stipulation And Proposed Order To Extend Time To Respond

To Court’s Scheduling Order Dated March 27, 2007

 CV 06-02534 LKK GGH

The parties agreed to this Stipulation after their respective attorneys of record met and

conferred on September 10, 2007, during which petitioner’s counsel advised respondent’s

counsel that petitioner intends to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus that will

identify all exhausted claims as well as two unexhausted claims. Thereafter, petitioner will move

the Court for an Order to stay and hold in abeyance the amended petition and grant petitioner

leave to exhaust the unexhausted claims in state court. Pursuant to this Stipulation, respondent

reserves the right to raise all legal objections to petitioner’s request for an order staying and

holding in abeyance the federal petition.

Dated: September 10, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH J. WISEMAN, P. C.

By: /s/ Joseph J. Wiseman

JOSEPH J. WISEMAN

Attorney for Petitioner

FRANCISCO PEREZ MEDINA

Dated: September 10, 2007 California Attorney General’s Office

By: /s/ Patrick James Whalen

PATRICK JAMES WHALEN

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Respondent

M. CRAMER

ORDER

Pursuant to stipulation of the parties and with the court’s modification below, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Should petitioner elect to proceed on the original petition, petitioner

must so inform the court, as well as file any supplemental memorandum of points and

authorities on or before October 23, 2007, with no further extension;

Case 2:06-cv-02534-LKK -GGH Document 25 Filed 09/13/07 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

3

__________________________________________________________________________________________

_______

Stipulation And Proposed Order To Extend Time To Respond

To Court’s Scheduling Order Dated March 27, 2007

 CV 06-02534 LKK GGH

2. Should petitioner elect to proceed upon an amended petition of

exhausted claims only, petitioner must file the amended petition on or before October

23, 2007, with no further extension.

3. If petitioner proceeds as set forth either under no. 1 or no. 2 above,

respondent must file an answer or dispositive motion within 60 days thereafter;

petitioner must file any reply or opposition, as appropriate, within 30 days of service of

respondent's responsive pleading; if respondent filed a motion, respondent will have 15

days after service of an opposition to file a reply.

4. Should petitioner identify unexhausted claims which petitioner

will seek to exhaust, petitioner shall file an amended petition, on or before October 23,

2007, with no further extension, setting forth all claims, exhausted and unexhausted, and

shall demonstrate good cause for having failed to exhaust state court remedies as to any

claim which petitioner would seek to exhaust. Petitioner shall move the court to hold the

proceedings in abeyance pending exhaustion of state court remedies as to the

unexhausted claims, on or before October 23, 2007, with no further extension; if a stay

is ultimately granted, petitioner must immediately pursue state court exhaustion, that is,

within 30 days of the granting of a stay, and, upon said exhaustion in state court, within

30 days, proceed upon the amended petition in federal court. 

5. Should respondent object to any motion for a stay of proceedings

by petitioner to pursue unexhausted claims, respondent must file any opposition to such

a motion within 30 days of service thereof; thereafter, petitioner has 15 days to file any

reply.

6. If petitioner intends to make a motion for leave to conduct

discovery under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 6(a), petitioner must do

so by no later than October 23, 2007, with no further extension; if respondent opposes

any such motion respondent must do so within 30 days thereafter; petitioner's reply, if

any, must be filed within 15 days of any opposition by respondent. 

7. If petitioner chooses to move for an evidentiary hearing, petitioner

must do so at the earliest appropriate opportunity; should petitioner file a motion for an

evidentiary hearing, respondent must file any opposition within 30 days of service of the

motion, and petitioner must file any reply within 15 days of service of any opposition.

Dated: 9/13/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

U.S. Magistrate Judge

medi2534.po6

Case 2:06-cv-02534-LKK -GGH Document 25 Filed 09/13/07 Page 3 of 3