Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00142/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00142-6/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

 To the extent that petitioner’s counsel is unfamiliar with the automated budgeting 2

process, they are encouraged to contact this chambers or the Office of the Circuit Executive for

the Ninth Circuit for more information. 

2

Petitioner has represented that respondent has no objection to his motion for an

extension of time. Accordingly, the court grants petitioner’s motion and his response is due on

June 30, 2006, with a hearing date set for July 18, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. The court also grants

petitioner’s request to hold a case management conference and ex parte budget conference on

June 13, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for both sides are reminded that the undersigned is aware

that travel to Redding involves some hardship and expense and allows telephone appearances

through Court Call. 

At the case management conference the parties should be prepared to discuss the

litigation time-table in this case. The court will discuss with both parties how much time each

side expects disposing of the current procedural motion will take. The court will also discuss

with the parties the time-table for filing an answer after the motion to dismiss is resolved. 

At the conclusion of this discussion, respondent will be excused from the

conference and the court will conduct an ex parte budgeting hearing with petitioner’s counsel. 

Counsel for petitioner should be prepared to discuss the justification for petitioner’s proposed

budget. As a method to manage and monitor the costs of capital cases, the undersigned will

adhere to the Ninth Circuit’s Capital Case Budgeting Project. In accordance with this, petitioner

will be required to prepare and submit budgets for tasks to be performed by attorneys and

paralegals and for expenses incurred for investigative, expert and other services. 

2

 A separate budget is required for each of the four phases of this litigation: Phase I

(appointment, record review and preliminary investigation); Phase II (petition, preparation,

answer, and exhaustion); Phase III (merits briefing, fact development, discovery, and motion for

an evidentiary hearing); and Phase IV (pre-evidentiary-hearing-discovery, evidentiary hearing,

and final briefing). A review of the docket indicates that the instant case has not previously been

Case 2:03-cv-00142-MCE-DMC Document 60 Filed 05/24/06 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

budgeted, but it is in Phase II of the automated budgeting process. In order to facilitate the ex

parte budget discussions on June 13, 2006, the court requires petitioner’s counsel to submit,

under seal, a proposed Phase II budget by June 6, 2006. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d),the Clerk of the Court is

directed to substitute Robert Wong, the Acting Warden, in the caption of this case;

2. Petitioner’s response to respondent’s May 1, 2006 motion to dismiss is due on

or before June 30, 2006;

3. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for July 18, 2006; and

4. Counsel for petitioner shall submit a proposed Phase II budget, consistent with

the automated budgeting process developed by the Judicial Counsel, by June 6, 2006.

DATED: May 23, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00142-MCE-DMC Document 60 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 3