Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05279/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05279-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL C. BOLIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr., Warden of )

San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. 1:99-CV-5279-LJO

Death Penalty Case

Order Setting Schedule for Motion for

Evidentiary Hearing

A case management conference was held before Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill

on May 12, 2008, and continued to May 27 at 8 a.m., to discuss the schedule for

filing a motion for evidentiary hearing in this case. Telephonic appearances were

made on May 27 by Robert Bacon and Allison Claire for Petitioner Paul C. Bolin

(“Bolin”), and by Harry Colombo, Melissa Lipon and Ryan McCarroll for

Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr. (“the Warden”). 

The parties agreed to the following briefing schedule:

1. Bolin will file his motion for evidentiary hearing by November 21, 2008;

2. The Warden will file any opposition to Bolin’s motion by March 20, 2009;

3. Bolin’s reply to the State’s opposition is due by May 20, 2009.

The motion for evidentiary hearing is a limited document, which should

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 207 Filed 05/27/08 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

OBrfgSchdBol.wpd 2

only (1) identify the claims for which a hearing is sought, (2) provide an offer of

proof for the evidence sought to be presented, and (3) explain briefly why that

evidence was not developed in state proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). 

Bolin’s offers of proof, and the Warden’s counter-offers of proof, may consist of

witness and/or expert declarations, or statements of counsel.

Whether the Court grants Bolin an evidentiary hearing depends on three

factors. The first is whether his claims, as pleaded, are cognizable under federal

constitutional law. The second is whether the claims are supported (or

contradicted) by the record. The third is whether Bolin has submitted offers of

proof which would establish, by evidence admissible at a hearing, the validity of

his claims. Because Bolin’s petition is fully briefed with comprehensive points

and authorities, as well as a traverse to the Warden’s points and authorities, the

evientiary hearing motion need not address the first factor since that issue is

already briefed. As to whether any particular claim is supported or contradicted

by the record, that matter may be brought to the Court’s attention in the moving

papers if it has not been previously raised in the briefs supporting and opposing

the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 27, 2008 

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

United States District Judge

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 207 Filed 05/27/08 Page 2 of 2