Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01793/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01793-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Case Nos. 5-6-cv-219-JF-RS, 5-6-cv-926-JF-RS, & 5-6-cv-1793-JF-RS

ORDER SETTING AGENDA FOR STATUS CONFERENCE

(DPSAGOK)

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Michael Angelo MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

James E. TILTON, Secretary of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and

Robert L. Ayers Jr., Warden of San Quentin State

Prison,

 Defendants.

Case Number 5-6-cv-219-JF-RS

Case Number 5-6-cv-926-JF-RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER SETTING AGENDA FOR

STATUS CONFERENCE

[]

PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

James E. TILTON, Secretary of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and

Robert L. Ayers Jr., Warden of San Quentin State

Prison,

 Defendants.

Case Number 5-6-cv-1793-JF-RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER SETTING AGENDA FOR

STATUS CONFERENCE

[]

The Court has scheduled a joint status conference in the above-captioned related actions

for June 1, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. In addition to any other issues that counsel may wish to address at

the status conference, the Court is interested in the parties’ views with respect to the following

Case 3:06-cv-01793-RS Document 59 Filed 05/21/07 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

Case Nos. 5-6-cv-219-JF-RS, 5-6-cv-926-JF-RS, & 5-6-cv-1793-JF-RS

ORDER SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE 

(DPSAGOK)

questions:

1. What discovery, if any, is appropriate prior to the Court’s consideration of

Defendants’ submission of May 15, 2007? What types of discovery disputes may arise, and what

is the expected time line for such discovery? Do Defendants intend to renew their request for a

protective order?

2. Is a further evidentiary hearing appropriate, and if so, what is the appropriate scope,

duration, and timing of such a hearing? Should a portion of the hearing consist of an inspection

of the new facilities at San Quentin, and if so, when should such inspection take place?

3. What additional legal briefing is expected, and what is the appropriate scope and

timing of such briefing?

4. Should this Court request that the Marin Superior Court rule on Plaintiff Morales’s

claim based on California’s Administrative Procedures Act prior to the entry of a final judgment

in the present actions, or should these federal actions proceed without regard to the status of the

state-court proceedings?

5. In light of Defendants’ submission of May 15, 20007, is the current complaint of

Plaintiff Pacific News Service unripe or moot? If not, should the complaint nonetheless be

amended prior to further consideration by this Court?

Although counsel should be prepared to address these questions orally at the status

conference, written submissions in advance of the conference are neither required nor solicited

by this order.

DATED: May 21, 2007 __________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01793-RS Document 59 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2