Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rundle v. Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 15, 2010

DAVID ALLEN RUNDLE, PETITIONER,
v.
WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

On October 14, 2010, the undersigned held a status conference. Lynne Coffin appeared for petitioner. Marcia Morrissey participated telephonically for petitioner. David Eldridge and Michael Farrell appeared for respondent. Petitioner's counsel informed the court that they intend to file a traverse, primarily to address procedural issues raised in the answer. In response, the court informed the parties that it does not want litigation of procedural issues to delay all factual development of this case.

After hearing the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. By February 11, 2011, petitioner shall file a traverse. Because respondent has raised procedural defenses in the answer, petitioner's traverse shall brief those procedural defense issues in addition to refuting any merits arguments in the answer. The court intends the traverse to be petitioner's memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to respondent's assertion of procedural defenses. After the traverse is filed, respondent will be given an opportunity to seek leave to file a reply memorandum, if necessary.

2. Before March 10, 2011, the parties shall meet and confer regarding a schedule for these proceedings and, specifically, any discovery either party intends to seek. By March 10, 2011, each party shall file a status report proposing a schedule, describing the discovery he will seek, and outlining any opposition to the discovery the other party will seek. The parties are advised that the undersigned finds that summary judgment is usually not an efficient or cost-saving procedure in a habeas case. Rather, the court contemplates that after the litigation of any procedural issues, the parties may thereafter complete discovery, then petitioner may file a motion for an evidentiary hearing, and, after any evidentiary hearing, the parties will file final merits briefs on all issues.

3. On March 17, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., the undersigned will hold a status conference in courtroom # 25.

20101015

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.