Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01155-7/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

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Robert Wong is substituted for 1

his predecessor. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the above

caption.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY JAY HAWKINS, No. CIV S-96-1155-FCD-CMK

Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

vs. ORDER

ROBERT WONG, Acting Warden, 1

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, brings this petition

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the court is petitioner’s

motion for an extension of time (Doc. 203).

On November 2, 2004, the court, among other things, ordered as follows:

The parties shall complete development of the factual record

necessary to decide the remaining claims by June 17, 2005. By that

deadline the parties shall have completed their factual investigations and

marshaled all relevant documents and things, shall have identified their

witnesses to the opponent and exchanged the expert witness reports

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B), shall have requested subpoenas

Case 2:96-cv-01155-TLN-JDP Document 205 Filed 06/21/06 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

2

and shall have obtained leave of court to invoke the process of discovery

and shall have moved to expand the record to include all or any part of

these things such that the motion, and any opposition based upon 28

U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) or otherwise, may have been considered and decided

by the June 17, 2005, deadline.

Pursuant to an extension of time granted on April 25, 2006, the deadline described above is

currently June 20, 2006. Petitioner now seeks a further extension of this deadline to August 20,

2006. Good cause appearing therefor, the request will be granted.

The court notes that this is petitioner’s sixth request for an extension. Petitioner’s

motions suggest that an extension is required, in part, because pending cross-motions for

summary judgment have not been decided. The parties are advised that this is not an acceptable

reason for an extension. In the November 2, 2004, order, the court found that Claims C-I, K-Q,

T-DD, and FF-HH were amenable to summary judgment on the existing record, and directed the

parties to file cross-motions on these claims. The court also directed the parties to complete

factual development and file a motion for evidentiary hearing as to the remaining claims. 

Therefore, the court’s resolution of the claims which have been briefed is not relevant to

completion of factual development of the remaining claims. To the extent any of the claims

which have been briefed are not denied as a matter of law, the court will provide the parties an

opportunity for factual development of such claims. In the meantime, this case can proceed

forward with factual development of those claims which have not been addressed in the parties’

briefs. 

Petitioner also indicates that he has submitted a budget request for Phase IV of

this case, and suggests that an extension is also justified because that request has not been

resolved. Again, this is not an adequate justification. First, this case is not yet in Phase IV

(evidentiary hearing and final briefing). The case is in Phase III (merits briefing, fact

development, motion for evidentiary hearing), and a budget for this phase has been approved. 

The November 2, 2004, order contemplates Phase III activities by requiring briefing on the

merits of various claims and fact development in anticipation of a motion for evidentiary

Case 2:96-cv-01155-TLN-JDP Document 205 Filed 06/21/06 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

3

hearing. These activities do not require approval of a Phase IV budget. Second, while petitioner

states that he submitted a Phase IV budget request on November 14, 2005, no such document

appears on the court’s docket or in the court’s sealed file. It appears that petitioner’s Phase IV

budget request was informally submitted pursuant to procedures adopted by the previously

assigned judge. Closer to the completion of Phase III, the court will set a case management

conference to discuss Phase IV, at which time petitioner will be directed to formally re-submit a

Phase IV budget proposal. In the meantime, the resolution of a Phase IV budget request is not

relevant to completion of Phase III. 

In light of the foregoing, further extensions of time based on these reasons will

not be granted. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time is granted; and

2. The deadline for the parties to comply with the portion of the court’s

November 2, 2004, order set forth above is extended to August 20, 2006. 

DATED: June 20, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:96-cv-01155-TLN-JDP Document 205 Filed 06/21/06 Page 3 of 3