Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401-22/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

JAMES S. THOMSON

California SBN 79658

Attorney and Counselor at Law

819 Delaware Street 

Berkeley, California 94710

Telephone: (510) 525-9123

Facsimile: (510) 525-9124

JOLIE LIPSIG

Attorney at Law

California SBN 104644

1006 4th St., Suite 301

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 443-6995

Facsimile: (916) 443-7081

Attorneys for Petitioner

WILLIAM A. PROCTOR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM A. PROCTOR, ) No. CIV-S-96-1401 RBB CMK

)

Petitioner, ) DEATH PENALTY CASE

)

 )

v. ) APPLICATION AND ORDER

) FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

)

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, Warden of )

California State Prison at San Quentin, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

This Court issued an under-seal Budget Order on January 22, 2008. A request for

reconsideration of this order must be filed by February 5, 2008, or the order will become final. 

Local Rule 72-303(b).

Petitioner, by and through his counsel, hereby requests a sixty (60) day extension of time,

or until April 5, 2008 in which to seek reconsideration of the January 22, 2008 Order.

The extension of time is necessary for the following reasons:

1. Although the Budget Order was issued by this Court on January 22, 2008, due to

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 255 Filed 02/13/08 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

1. Co-counsel Ms Lipsig, did not receive a hard copy of this document from the Court

at all. She has notified the Clerk’s Office of this and other problems with the handling of

sealed orders.

2

the use of conventional mail for sealed documents, lead counsel did not receive a copy of this

order for several days. The Budget Order itself is 42 pages long and it was followed by a 1

supplemental order that addressed matters not covered in the original order as well as corrected the

numerous tables set forth in the original. Careful review and analysis of these sealed orders will

require a substantial amount of time.

2. The Budget Order was issued after a lengthy ex parte conference between this

Court and counsel. At this conference, this Court made reference to and quoted from a recording

of a previous ex parte conference, held on February 13, 2007. Counsel attempted to obtain the

recordings of both of these ex parte conferences, but were informed they needed a court order to

release copies of the recordings to them. On January 31, 2008, counsel filed a request and

proposed order, asking this Court to direct the reporter to release the recordings to them. This

Court granted the request today but counsel have not yet received the recordings.

3. Due to the length and complexity of the Budget Order, the budget conference and

the matters addressed therein, counsel are still trying to determine whether, to what extent, and/or

by what means to challenge certain portions of the Budget Order. To that end, counsel must

consult with Federal Resource Counsel and review the recordings of the budget conference, as

well as research relevant procedural and substantive matters. Additional time is required so that

counsel can obtain and review the recordings and conduct the research necessary to make a

reasoned decision how best to proceed without jeopardizing petitioner’s rights.

4. This request for an extension of time will not delay the remainder of the

proceedings or the briefing schedule established by this Court in its January 28, 2008 scheduling

order. Counsel intend to proceed with the matters scheduled by this Court while awaiting a final

ruling on their Phase III Budget.

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 255 Filed 02/13/08 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

For all the reasons stated above, petitioner requests that he be granted an additional sixty

(60) days, to and including April 5, 2008, in which to seek reconsideration of the January 22, 2008

Budget Order. 

DATED: February 4, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

/s/JAMES S. THOMSON

/s/ JOLIE LIPSIG

Attorneys for Petitioner

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 13, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 255 Filed 02/13/08 Page 3 of 3