Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

George Souliotes v. Anthony Hedgpeth

October 14, 2011

GEORGE SOULIOTES,
PETITIONER,
v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, WARDEN,
RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

EVIDENTIARY HEARING SCHEDULING ORDER
Deadlines for Briefs Regarding Scope of Hearing and Discovery Initial Breifing: October 28, 2011 Replies: November 4, 2011 Witness Disclosure Deadline:

Non-Expert: November 14, 2011*fn1 ) Expert: December 1, 2011 Discovery Deadline:

January 2, 2012 Pre-Hearing Conference:

January 5, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 6 (MJS) Evidentiary Hearing:

January 24, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 6 (MJS) 3-5 Days

I. Introduction

On August 17, 2011, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case to this Court for further proceedings.The order, in its entirety, states:

In light of the intervening en banc decision in Lee v. Lampert, No. 09-35276, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15830, 2011 WL 3275947 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011) (en banc), we vacate our opinion in Souliotes v. Evans, 622 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2010), reverse the district court's dismissal of Souliotes's habeas petition as untimely, and remand for proceedings consistent with Lee.

We also vacate our order of limited remand issued on May 25, 2011, with the understanding that the district court will conduct whatever proceedings are necessary, in an expedited manner, to determine whether any of Souliotes's habeas claims may be addressed on the merits.

Souliotes v. Evans, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17034, 1-2 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011).

On September 21, 2011, this Court ordered that the case proceed with an evidentiary hearing to determine if the statute of limitations was tolled or otherwise excepted with regard to the claims in Petitioner's federal petition. (Order, ECF No. 79.) Specifically, the order granted "Petitioner's request to proceed to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine: (1) whether Petitioner satisfies the diligence requirement of § 2244(d)(1)(D) with regard to his discovery of the new MPD evidence with regard to his stand-alone claim of actual innocence, and (2) whether Petitioner presents a claim of actual innocence to entitle him to an equitable exception under Schlup v. Delo to AEDPA's limitations period with regard to his underlying claims."

On October 13, 2011, a telephonic scheduling conference was held to discuss pre-hearing and hearing procedures and issues. Attorney Jimmy McBirney appeared on behalf of Petitioner. Attorney Kathleen McKenna appeared on behalf of Respondent.

This Scheduling Order implements and effectuates the agreements and decisions made at the October 13, 2011 scheduling conference.

II. Briefing Regarding Scope of Hearing and Discovery

The parties disagree as to the scope of discovery and the scope of evidence to be presented at the hearing. The parties shall submit briefing to the Court on such issues on or before October 28, 2011. Each party shall be provided an opportunity to file a reply to the opposing parties' brief on or before November ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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