Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00942/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00942-9/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

06dp000942.OFollPhaseII-ACMC.SanNic.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY JESSE SAN NICOLAS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr., as Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. 1:06-CV-00942-LJO

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER FOLLOWING PHASE II-A CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DATE: June 21, 2007

TIME: 8:45 a.m.

COURTROOM FOUR

This matter came on for hearing June 21, 2007at 8:45 a.m. in the above referenced Court, the

Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill presiding. Petitioner Rodney Jesse San Nicolas (“San Nicolas”) was

represented by his counsel of record, CJA attorney Wesley A. Van Winkle and Assistant Federal

Defender Harry Simon. Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr., as Warden of San Quentin State Prison, (the

“Warden”) was represented by Deputy Attorney General Charles A. French. All counsel appeared

telephonically.

Phase I of the litigation in this case was considered completed as of June 15, 2007, although not

all litigation tasks anticipated to have been completed in Phase I were completed. Under the Guide to

Case Management and Budgeting in Capital Habeas Cases, Eastern District of California, Fresno

Division (the “Fresno Attorney Guide”), by the end of Phase I a petitioner’s litigation team generally has

made a substantial effort to complete review of the state record and case files, conducted preliminary

investigation, and advised the Court of the nature of the case by completing a Case Evaluation form.

The Warden’s litigation team similarly is expected at the culmination of Phase I to have advised the

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 46 Filed 06/22/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 The first step in resolving exhaustion issues is for the parties to meet and confer. Thereafter 1

they are directed to file a joint statement outlining which claims are in dispute respecting exhaustion.

The Court thereafter makes a final determination.

The order granting San Nicolas’s motion to equitably toll the limitations period was filed on 2

March 9, 2007, document 32.

 July 12, 2007 is the date the federal petition would have been due had the Court not ordered

3

equitable tolling. It is one year following the denial of San Nicolas’s original state habeas petition by

the California Supreme Court.

06dp000942.OFollPhaseII-ACMC.SanNic.wpd 2

Court of the nature of the case by completing a Case Evaluation form and also to have lodged the state

record. The parties also are expected to have agreed on the expiration of the statute of limitations under

28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Phase I may include a motion to extend the limitations period under equitable

principles. All of the foregoing tasks were completed in Phase I of San Nicolas’s case, including the

filing by Nicolas of a motion to equitably toll the statute of limitations. The Court granted the motion

due to the substantial delay in appointing counsel. As result, the limitations period has been extended

to January 16, 2008.

Phase II generally involves the petitioner’s continuation of record review, claim development

and preparation of the federal petition. During Phase II, the Warden files an answer to the petition, and

both parties work on resolving of all exhaustion issues. If there is a state exhaustion petition filed 1

during Phase II, the Court considers holding federal proceedings in abeyance. If abeyance is ordered,

Phase II resumes when state exhaustion proceedings are complete. At that time, the federal petition is

either amended or reactivated, the answer is filed, and exhaustion issues are resolved. Phase II does not

involve litigation of procedural default, as this issue is considered an affirmative defense. As with the

motion to toll the limitations period filed in Phase I of the litigation, Phase II may involve the litigation

ofstatute of limitations issues, although the limitations bar generally is treated as an affirmative defense

and addressed after the substantive claims in the petition are briefed. In the present case, Mr. French

advised the Court that although the limitations period was equitably tolled to January 16, 2008, the 2

Warden may move for an order dismissing the case shortly after July 12, 2007 because of the limitations

bar under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Mr. Simon and Mr. Van Winkle also advised the Court that San Nicolas 3

likely will be filing a subsequent state habeas corpus petition contemporaneous with the filing of his

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 46 Filed 06/22/07 Page 2 of 5
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

06dp000942.OFollPhaseII-ACMC.SanNic.wpd 3

anticipated federal petition by January 16, 2008. At that time, San Nicolas also will file a motion to hold

federal proceedings in abeyance pending the completion of state exhaustion proceedings.

Based on the foregoing explanation of the case, the Court contemplates that Phase II of this

litigation will proceed in two parts. Phase II-A will be in effect until the Court orders abeyance of

federal proceedings (if the Court orders abeyance of federal proceedings) pending the completion of state

exhaustion. Since the federal petition currently is due January 16, 2008, the Court will extend Phase IIA thirty days beyond that date to Friday, February 15, 2008. Phase II-B will commence once state

exhaustion is complete and the matter resumes in federal court with the reactivation or amendment of

the federal petition, the Warden’s answer, and exhaustion resolution. 

Mr. French’s revelation that the Warden may file a motion to dismiss the action shortly after July

12, 2007 raises additional, previously unanticipated issues respecting both case management and

budgeting. Mr. French did not advise the Court of the grounds for the potential motion to dismiss,

although, based on the proposed date of the filing, the Court surmises the Warden intends to revisit the

Court’s equitable tolling order of March 9, 2007. Because case management and budgeting concerns

are directly implicated by the Warden’s tentative intention to file a motion to dismiss, the Court orders

the Warden to advise the Court by 4 p.m. Monday, June 25, 2007 whether he will file such a motion,

and if so on what grounds. The Warden is directed to give specific consideration to Bowles v. Russell,

___ S. Ct.___, 2007 WL 10702870 at *5 (June 14, 2007), Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 126 S. Ct.

1675, 1681, 1684 (2006), and Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Beeler), 128 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir.

1997), overruled in part on other grounds by Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (Kelly), 163 F.3d 530

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc), abrogated on other grounds by Woodford v Garceau, 538 U.S. 212 (2003).

Just before the culmination of Phase I, the Department of Justice published proposed regulations

to implement the process for determining whether a state is eligible to receive the benefits of the

expedited procedures under Chapter 154 of Title 28 of the United States Code, §§ 2261-2266, as

amended by the Patriot Reauthorization Act of 2005. The potential that California will request

certification for Chapter 154 is an issue of great concern to the prosecution and defense bars. The Court

anticipates that a great deal of work will be undertaken by members of the capital defense bar during the

preliminary comment period of the proposed regulations, after the regulations are adopted (if they are

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 46 Filed 06/22/07 Page 3 of 5
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

06dp000942.OFollPhaseII-ACMC.SanNic.wpd 4

adopted), and during the application process of the state of California for certification (if the state applies

for certification). Accordingly, the Court asked Mr. French to relay the current position of the State

Attorney General’s Office on Chapter 154. Mr. French responded as follows:

Chapter 154 of Title 28 of the United States Code applies to capital cases that have

established a mechanism forthe appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable

litigation expenses of competent counsel in State post conviction proceedings. If

requested by a appropriate state official, the Attorney General of the United States has

the responsibility to certify a State’s mechanism under Chapter 154. The Attorney

General has also been charged with the responsibility to promulgate regulations to

implement the certification procedure.

On June 5, 2007, the Attorney General filed draft regulations for the certification process.

Those draft regulations are now subject to public comment. Since the Attorney General

has not yet formally adopted regulations under Chapter 154, no decision has been made

or can be made about whether the State of California will request certification. That

decision will be made when regulations for the certification process are finally adopted

and take effect. Respondent will advise the court of California’s position once final

regulations are in place.

This submission offers no information as to whether the State Attorney General’s Office will or will not

seek certification under Chapter 154 because any decision in this regard would be premature at this time.

The Court appreciates Mr. French’s offer to advise the Court of any change of position by the State

Attorney General once final regulations are adopted.

Following discussion of the scope oflitigation tasksthat have been performed in Phase I and will

be performed in Phase II, including the Warden’s potential motion to dismiss and the position of the

State of California on Chapter 154 certification, the Court excused Mr. French from further participation

in the hearing so matters of funding and budget preparation could proceed ex parte with Messrs. Van

Winkle and Simon. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f), ex parte consideration of funding applications requires

a showing of the need of confidentiality. Since budget applications require disclosure of matters

protected by the attorney-client privilege and/ or the work product rule, the need for confidentiality is

inherent in the budgeting process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Accordingly, budget forms and

supporting documentation are filed under seal and court proceedings similarly are conducted

confidentially. An order to be filed within the next calendar week, under seal, will document the results

of the ex parte proceedings regarding the budget of Phase II-A of San Nicolas’s case. The Warden’s

response to the Court’s question about Chapter 154 certification and the potential motion to dismiss on

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 46 Filed 06/22/07 Page 4 of 5
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

06dp000942.OFollPhaseII-ACMC.SanNic.wpd 5

the grounds of the statute of limitations bar are important considerations for the Court’s evaluation of

San Nicolas’s proposed case management and budget plan.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

Lawrence J. O’Neill

 United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 46 Filed 06/22/07 Page 5 of 5