Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492-20/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

Order (1:05-cv-01492 OWW (DP)) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RICHARD JOHN VIEIRA, 

Petitioner,

v. 

MICHAEL MARTEL, ACTING 

WARDEN, 

Respondent.

Case No. 1:05-cv-01492 OWW (DP) 

ORDER REVISED BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE 

CAPITAL CASE 

Respondent Michael Martel, as Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden,” 

has submitted a request to modify the scheduling order issued July 22, 2010, and last modified 

June 1, 2011 (doc. 92). The Warden’s counsel reports that counsel for Petitioner Richard J. 

Vieira (“Vieira”) has no objection to the requested modification. 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, 

1. The Warden’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the petition shall 

be filed on or before August 4, 2011. The Warden shall defer his discussion of the application of 

Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011), until briefing on Petitioner Vieira’s anticipated 

motion for an evidentiary hearing. 

2. Vieira shall file a reply brief on or before November 2, 2011. 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 95 Filed 07/11/11 Page 1 of 2
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

Order (1:05-cv-01492 OWW (DP)) 

3. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer about the need to conduct discovery. It is 

anticipated that motions for formal discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing § 2254 

Cases or record expansion pursuant to Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases will be 

presented and resolved without altering the schedule for briefing the petition. 

4. Vieira shall file his motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules 

Governing § 2254 Cases on or before December 7, 2011. The evidentiary hearing motion shall 

be limited to identification of: (a) the claims for which a hearing is sought; (b) an offer of proof as 

to the evidence sought to be presented; (c) a brief statement of the legal grounds for the 

evidentiary hearing; and (d) an explanation of diligence exercised in state court to develop the 

claims before the California Supreme Court (see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)). In light of the briefing 

of the petition, legal analysis and citation of authorities in support of claims for which a hearing is 

sought will not be necessary. The exception to presentation of legal analysis and citation to 

authority involves briefing the application of Pinholster to Vieira’s entitlement to further 

evidentiary development. 

5. The Warden shall file his opposition to the evidentiary hearing motion on or before 

January 4, 2012. 

6. Vieira shall file his reply to the opposition on or before February 10, 2012. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 8, 2011 __________________________/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER_ 

_____________________________ 

 United States District Court Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 95 Filed 07/11/11 Page 2 of 2