Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05279/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05279-1/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

99cp05279.OFollCMC.Bol.pdf.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL C. BOLIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

J. D. STOKES, As Acting )

Warden of San Quentin State )

Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. C.V. F-99-5279-REC-P 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

DATE: August 22, 2005

TIME: 1:00 p.m.

COURTROOM ONE

This matter came on for hearing for a Case Management Conference

in the above-entitled Court on August 22, 2005 at 1:00 p.m., the

Honorable Robert E. Coyle presiding. Petitioner Paul C. Bolin

(“Bolin”) was represented by Assistant Federal Defender Allison Claire

and private attorney Robert D. Bacon. Respondent J.D. Stokes, As

Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”) was

represented by Stephanie A. Mitchell. All counsel appeared

telephonically.

The purpose of the Case Management Conference was to determine

and discuss progress in review of the case since counsel for both

parties are relatively new. Bolin’s counsel informed the Court they

are still reviewing boxes of materials recently made available by

Bolin’s former counsel. At this point in the proceedings, Bolin is

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 135 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 4
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 The Warden’s Answer was filed June 17, 2005.

2 The “meet and confer” requirement was imposed by Court order.

3 It’s the application of the settled legal principles that

requires the greatest effort.

99cp05279.OFollCMC.Bol.pdf.wpd 2

not able to say with conviction whether any new claims will be

asserted in state or federal court. A second and more immediate

purpose for the Case Management Conference was to ascertain whether

the parties had come to a conclusion about the exhaustion status of

Bolin’s First Amended Petition (the “Petition”) filed January 19,

2005. 

Initially, the Warden maintained in his Answer1 that four claims

in the Petition were unexhausted. Following a telephonic “meet and

confer” between counsel,2 the Warden has recognized that the Court

already ruled on three of these four claims, finding the exhaustion

requirement satisfied in an order issued November 28, 2000. The

parties now agree that the exhaustion status of only one claim in the

Petition is in dispute.

According to prior Court order, the parties are to file a joint

statement setting forth their respective positions concerning the

exhaustion status of the Petition no later than September 12, 2005.

Since only one claim is in dispute, the joint statement will be

concomitantly abbreviated. First, the joint statement will identify

the operative law applicable to exhaustion. The parties are directed

not to spend a great deal of time and effort on this portion of the

joint statement, as the law governing exhaustion is settled.3 Second,

the Warden shall state whether the disputed claim is contended to be

factually unexhausted, legally unexhausted, or both. Finally, Bolin

shall explain why he contends the exhaustion requirement is satisfied,

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 135 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 4
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

4 The Guide to Case Management and Budgeting in Capital Habeas

Cases is available on the Court’s web page.

99cp05279.OFollCMC.Bol.pdf.wpd 3

either by identifying where in the state petition or direct appeal

proceedings the disputed claim was raised before the California

Supreme Court, or by presenting other grounds for satisfaction of

exhaustion.

Following review of the joint statement, the Court either will

issue an order resolving the exhaustion dispute, or request further

briefing in advance of deciding the exhaustion dispute. Once the

exhaustion status of the Petition is determined, the case will move

into Phase III of the litigation, which is the briefing stage. See

Guide to Case Management and Budgeting in Capital Habeas Cases.4 The

Court will advise the parties of the anticipated Phase III Case

Management Conference contemporaneous with resolving the exhaustion

dispute.

After discussion the above topics on the record, the Court then

excused Ms. Mitchell so the hearing could proceed to confidential

budgeting matters. Under 21 U.S.C. §848(q)(9), ex parte consideration

of budgeting and funding matters requires a petitioner to make a

showing of the need for confidentiality. The Court finds that since

budget applications require disclosure of matters protected by the

attorney-client and/or work product privileges, the need for

confidentiality is inherent in the budgeting process. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). The ex parte proceedings have been reported

and any memorialization of those proceedings will be maintained under

seal. An order summarizing the ex parte proceedings is filed under

seal concurrently with this order.

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 135 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 4
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

99cp05279.OFollCMC.Bol.pdf.wpd 4

In light of the foregoing, the parties shall file a joint

statement setting forth their respective positions concerning the

exhaustion status of one claim for which they do not agree exhaustion

is satisfied. The joint statement shall be electronically filed with

the Court no later than September 12, 2005. Thereafter the Court will

address the exhaustion dispute and notify the parties of its decision.

The Court will further notify the parties of the commencement of Phase

III of the litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2005 

 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

Robert E. Coyle

 United States District Judge

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 135 Filed 08/25/05 Page 4 of 4