Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00641/USCOURTS-casd-3_03-cv-00641-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

03cv641-BEN (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIOT V. BRANDY,

Petitioner,

v.

A.A. LAMARQUE, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 03cv641-BEN (BLM)

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND

REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEFING

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding by and through his

counsel, Vincent J. Brunkow and Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., on

his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Doc. No. 1. On November 28, 2006, the Court granted Petitioner’s most

recent request to continue the stay imposed in this case, and ordered

Petitioner to file a written report detailing the status of his state

court proceedings on or before February 16, 2007. Doc. No. 86 at 2. On

December 22, 2006, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report notifying

the Court that the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s state

habeas petition on December 13, 2006. Doc. No. 87 at 2. As such,

counsel represented that Petitioner has now exhausted his available

state remedies. Id.

Case 3:03-cv-00641-BEN-BLM Document 88 Filed 12/28/06 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

 Although the instant petition does not include a separate allegation of

ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner asserts an ineffective assistance of

counsel claim in his traverse. See Doc. No. 24. Moreover, on the Court’s orders,

Petitioner has not only submitted detailed supplemental briefing on this issue, but

also has provided relevant discovery regarding this claim to Respondents. For their

part, Respondents have submitted supplemental briefing addressing Petitioner’s

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Doc. No. 44 (Respondents’ Reply to

Petitioner’s Supplemental Brief regarding Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Claim). As

such, Respondents have long been aware of Petitioner’s allegations of ineffective

assistance. On this record, the Court finds it inappropriate to require Petitioner to

file a formal amendment to his habeas petition to include his previously articulated

ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

2 03cv641-BEN (BLM)

1. Lifting Stay: In light of Petitioner’s counsel’s

representations, and good cause appearing, the stay of the instant

petition for writ of habeas corpus is LIFTED.

2. Supplemental Briefing and Supplementation of the Record: Rule

7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases permits a district court to expand

the record by directing parties to submit “additional materials relating

to the petition.” Rule 7, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see also Cooper-Smith

v. Palmateer, 397 F.3d 1236, 1241 (9th Cir. 2005). Given the

significant delay since the parties have submitted briefing of any kind

on the claims presented in the instant habeas petition, and because

multiple state courts have issued rulings on Petitioner’s ineffective

assistance of counsel claim after all such briefing was filed, the Court

finds it appropriate to require supplemental briefing from both parties.

Such supplemental briefing should address the current status of the case

with regard to those claims articulated in the instant petition, see

Doc. No. 1 (Petition), as well as Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of

counsel claim.1 See Doc. Nos. 24 (Traverse), 34 (Petitioner’s

Supplemental Brief), and 61 (Supplemental Traverse). In particular, the

Case 3:03-cv-00641-BEN-BLM Document 88 Filed 12/28/06 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 03cv641-BEN (BLM)

supplemental briefing should include any factual or legal updates

relevant to the aforementioned claims, and any modification of the

positions advanced by the parties in all briefing previously submitted

to the Court.

Accordingly, Petitioner shall file his supplemental brief with

regard to these issues on or before January 26, 2007. Respondents

supplemental response is due on or before February 23, 2007. The matter

will be taken under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1)

and no appearances are necessary.

In addition, at the time Petitioner’s supplemental brief is filed,

Petitioner’s counsel shall lodge with the Court all supplemental records

bearing on the merits of Petitioner’s claims. The lodgments shall be

accompanied by a notice of lodgment which shall be captioned “Notice of

Lodgment in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus Case—To Be Sent to Clerk’s

Office.” At the time Respondents’ supplemental response is filed,

Respondents shall lodge with the Court any records not lodged by

Petitioner’s counsel which Respondents believe may be relevant to the

Court’s determination of the instant habeas petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 28, 2006

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE ROGER T. BENITEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:03-cv-00641-BEN-BLM Document 88 Filed 12/28/06 Page 3 of 3