Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01865/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01865-6/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL LEE WHALEN, 

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, California State Prison at San 

Quentin, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01865-LJO-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

This matter came on for a case management conference on May 26, 2015, at 3:00 p.m.,

in Department 9 of the above referenced court, the Honorable Stanley A. Boone presiding.

Petitioner, Daniel Whalen, was represented by Brian Abbington, Esq., and Jennifer Mann, 

Esq., of the Federal Public Defender’s Office. Respondent, Warden of San Quentin State 

Prison, was represented by Catherine Nieto, Esq. of the California Attorney General’s Office. 

All counsel appeared telephonically. 

Based on the parties’ confidential case evaluations and discussions at the May 26 

conference the Court finds as follows: 

1. By capital case standards this case is not especially complex. 

2. Limited discovery and factual development took place during state level postconviction investigation; no evidentiary hearing was held at the state level.

Case 1:14-cv-01865-JLT Document 26 Filed 05/27/15 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

27

28

2

3. Petitioner’s counsel have obtained state habeas and appellate counsel files, but 

have not assembled the balance of an estimated 32,035 page record. 

4. Respondent will lodge the state record, in electronic (PDF-OCR) form, with the 

Court on or before July 15, 2015, accompanied by a notice of lodging to be filed 

the same day. Should Petitioner’s counsel identify any documents in the notice 

of lodging to which they do not have access, they will contact the Respondent’s 

counsel. Respondent’s counsel shall make all such documents available to

Petitioner’s counsel upon request. 

5. The parties agree to completing record assembly and review and preliminary 

investigation by no later than September 15, 2015. 

6. The statute of limitations, under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), will be deemed to expire 

on November 12, 2015 unless Respondent files an objection to this date by no

later than thirty days following the filed date of this order, in which event the 

Court will resolve any dispute. 

7. Petitioner’s counsel shall investigate and develop a complete federal petition, 

including any newly discovered, unexhausted claims, before the limitations 

period expires and shall file Petitioner’s federal petition on or before November 

12, 2015. Any second state petition on Petitioner’s behalf presenting

unexhausted claims to the California Supreme Court also should be filed on or

before November 12, 2015. Counsel for Petitioner shall include with the federal 

petition any request for stay and abeyance under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 

(2005). Counsel for Petitioner does not at this point indicate that a request for 

equitable tolling will be needed. 

8. Respondent shall file any opposition to stay and abeyance and/or motion to 

dismiss, or answer to the federal petition, on or before January 15, 2016.

9. A further case management conference is set for January 29, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. 

Counsel shall appear telephonically and are directed to contact the Court’s 

Case 1:14-cv-01865-JLT Document 26 Filed 05/27/15 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

27

28

3

Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Ms. Mamie Hernandez, to obtain the teleconference 

code.

10. The parties are advised that the Court and will view any request to extend the 

above timeline with disfavor absent reasonably unforeseeable and unavoidable

circumstances showing good cause for an extension of time. 

Counsel for both parties are directed to familiarize themselves with the Guide to Case 

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

Division (the “Fresno Attorney Guide”) (available on the Court’s website at

www.caed.uscourts.gov under “Forms”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01865-JLT Document 26 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 3