IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 18, 2011
JAMES DAVID MAJORS, PETITIONER,
WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
DEATH PENALTY CASE
As required by the court's September 19, 2011 order, the parties submitted a joint status report. (Dkt. No. 226.) They propose the court resolve issues related to 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) and non-retroactivity under Teague v. Lane, 498 U.S. 288 (1988), before it addresses procedural default issues or permits further factual development.*fn1 The parties' proposed schedule for briefing section 2254(d) and Teague is supported by good cause. However, while the court agrees generally with the parties' proposed schedule for resolving any remaining procedural default and merits issues, the court finds it premature. The undersigned will conduct a status and scheduling conference after resolution of the section 2254(d) and Teague issues.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Within 180 days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file a memorandum of points and authorities addressing the satisfaction of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) for each claim in the amended petition.
2. Within 180 days of the filing date of petitioner's memorandum, respondent shall file an opposition, which shall include briefing of the non-retroactivity defense, to the extent it was asserted in the answer.
3. Within 90 days of the filing date of respondent's opposition, petitioner may file reply.
4. Extensions of these filing deadlines will be granted only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
5. After receipt of the briefs, the court will schedule argument, if necessary. Upon resolution of the section 2254(d) and Teague issues, the undersigned will conduct a scheduling conference.
6. Because the parties have agreed to a schedule, the scheduling conference set for October 20, 2011 is taken off calendar.
majors 2254d brfs.or