Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-2_96-cv-01401-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE

vs. ORDER

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A telephonic status conference regarding discovery

was held in this matter on February 13, 2007, before the undersigned in Redding, California. 

Brian G. Smiley, Esq., appeared on behalf of respondents. James Thompson, Esq., and Jolie

Lipsig, Esq., appeared on behalf of petitioner. 

In a status report submitted for this hearing, petitioner identifies two categories of

discovery: (1) discovery relating to documents contained in the files of the Shasta County

Sheriff’s Department which [respondent’s counsel] considered discoverable pursuant to Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), and California Penal Code § 1054.9; and (2) discovery

produced by the Attorney General in Frye v. Ornoski, Civ. S-99-628 LKK/JFM and Riel v.

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 220 Filed 03/09/07 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

The court notes that Claim EE is a penalty phase claim and, as such, is not before 1

the court on the current cross-motions for summary judgment on guilt phase claims.

2

Ornoski, Civ. S-01-507-LKK/KJM, concerning Claim EE that California’s death penalty statute

is unconstitutional. As to the first category of discovery (“§ 1054.9 discovery”), petitioner

1

states that most documents have been produced. All remaining documents relating to this

category of discovery, including summaries of meetings with family members, shall be produced

no later than April 6, 2007. As to the second category of discovery (“Claim EE discovery”), it

does not appear that the parties will be able to reach an informal resolution. Therefore, any

motion to compel production of this category of discovery shall be filed no later than May 18,

2007.

If initiated by petitioner’s counsel by scheduling a telephonic appearance and

providing reasonable notice to respondents’ counsel, a further telephonic status conference

regarding discovery will be held on May 24, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. before the undersigned. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 7, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:96-cv-01401-DAD-DMC Document 220 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 2