Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00942/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00942-26/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

RODNEY JESSE SAN NICOLAS,

Petitioner,

v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, as Warden of San

Quentin State Prison,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:06-cv-00942-LJO-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE AND INITIATING PHASE 

III BUDGET

Date: September 22, 2015

Time: 10:00 a.m.

TELEPHONIC

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ August 21, 2015 joint statement regarding 

phase III scheduling (ECF No. 152). By this order, the Court sets a telephonic case management 

conference to establish scheduling and budgeting for phase III.

I.

BACKGROUND

On September 10, 1992, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to death following a jury 

verdict finding him guilty of two counts of murder, one count of forcible rape, and one count of 

forcible lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14. Petitioner’s conviction and 

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 153 Filed 08/25/15 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

sentence were affirmed on state direct appeal on December 6, 2004. The Supreme Court denied 

Petitioner’s writ of certiorari on October 3, 2005. Petitioner’s state petition for writ of habeas 

corpus in the California Supreme Court was denied on July 12, 2006. 

On February 2, 2007, this Court appointed Wesley A. Van Winkle as counsel to represent 

Petitioner. On March 30, 2007, the Federal Defender’s Office was appointed co-counsel with 

Mr. Van Winkle. 

Petitioner filed a protective petition in this Court on July 12, 2007. On January 16, 2008, 

he filed an amended federal petition. He concurrently filed a three claim addendum petition, 

which the Court ordered filed under seal, with the only justiciable claim therein being claim 1. 

On March 3, 2008, the Court ordered these proceedings held in abeyance of Petitioner’s 

state exhaustion petition. On February 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court denied the 

exhaustion petition. 

On February 20, 2014, the Court ordered Respondent to either identify unexhausted 

claims or answer the petitions. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss as unexhausted sealed 

claim 1, which the Court denied on October 23, 2014.

On February 6, 2015, the Court ordered Respondent to answer the unsealed and sealed 

petitions, and ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint statement regarding 

transition to phase III. 

Respondent answered the unsealed petition on July 22, 2015. He answered the sealed 

petition on July 30, 2015. 

The parties filed their noted joint statement on August 21, 2015. 

II.

DISCUSSION

The parties’ joint statement suggests that Respondent does not intend to file any amended 

answer; that all claims have been exhausted; and that no procedural or limitations issues require 

discussion prior to moving this case to phase III.

Additionally, the parties’ joint statement proposes a schedule for phase III merits briefing

of the thirty-eight (38) claims in the amended petition and claim 1 in the sealed petition. 

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 153 Filed 08/25/15 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

The Court will conduct a phase III case management conference to address these and 

other issues. The parties should be prepared to address the facts underlying their current 

scheduling assumptions and options for expediting phase III briefing. The merits of all claims 

will be addressed prior to procedural defenses and defenses under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288

(1989).

In addition, Petitioner, through counsel, shall file under seal a proposed phase III budget 

by not later than September 15, 2015.

At the conclusion of the case management conference, Respondent’s counsel will be 

excused and the conference will continue ex parte with counsel for Petitioner present to discuss 

budgeting issues.

III.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that a telephonic case management conference 

to establish scheduling and budgeting for phase III is set for September 22, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in 

Courtroom 9 before the undersigned. The attorneys are directed to contact the Court’s 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00942-KES Document 153 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 3