Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00705-30/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN CORNWELL, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent.

No. 2:06-cv-0705 TLN CSK DP

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER REQURING JOINT STATUS 

REPORT RE SCHEDULING

Petitioner is a state prisoner under sentence of death. In addressing the application of 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to each of petitioner’s claims, the district court deferred consideration of the 

pending procedural default issues. Pursuant to the parties’ prior joint status report, respondent 

confirmed that procedural default challenges are limited to Claim 3(e), whether trial counsel 

unreasonably failed to rebut the prosecutor’s argument that because petitioner was not insane at 

the time of the 1983 and 1992 crimes, there was no mitigation, and Claim 34, ineffective 

assistance of state habeas counsel, and respondent proposed that “the procedural bars be 

addressed in post-discovery or evidentiary hearing briefing when the parties brief the merits of 

the remaining claims.” (ECF No. 131 at 2.) Petitioner raised no objection, and by order filed 

March 25, 2021, the procedural default challenges were so limited. (ECF No. 133 at 3.) 

Subsequently, in March 2022, the parties’ motions for discovery were addressed, and the 

production of particular documents was ordered. (ECF Nos. 141, 142.) 

Case 2:06-cv-00705-TLN-CSK Document 148 Filed 10/16/24 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

27

28

2

In the March 25, 2021 order, the previously assigned magistrate judge noted that 

petitioner would seek an evidentiary hearing on Claim 3, contemplated to be filed 45 days after 

completion of the discovery process, and ordered petitioner to file the motion for evidentiary 

hearing 45 days following completion of the discovery process involving all sub-claims of Claim 

3 and Claim 34. (ECF No. 133 at 2-3.) Over two and one-half years have passed since the 

discovery motions were addressed by the Court in March 2022, and no motion for evidentiary 

hearing has been filed. The Court therefore presumes that petitioner no longer seeks an 

evidentiary hearing.

Therefore, the parties are directed to file, within thirty days from the date of this order, a 

joint status report setting forth a briefing schedule on the remaining procedural default issues and 

the merits of the remaining claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty days from the date of this 

order, the parties shall file a joint status report setting forth a briefing schedule on the remaining 

procedural default issues and the merits of the remaining claims.

Dated: October 15, 2024

/1/corn0705.sr

Case 2:06-cv-00705-TLN-CSK Document 148 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 2