IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 19, 2012
RAYMOND EDWARD STEELE, PETITIONER,
DEATH PENALTY CASE WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge
The undersigned held a scheduling conference on April 19, 2012. David Harshaw appeared for petitioner. Eric Christoffersen appeared for respondent. The parties agreed that the discovery motion described in the September 8, 2011 order should be limited to seeking evidence petitioner feels may be lost if not sought soon.
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The requirement in the court's September 8, 2011 order that petitioner seek "all known discovery" in his discovery motion is vacated.
2. By June 1, 2012, petitioner shall file a motion for time-sensitive discovery. In addition to demonstrating good cause under Habeas Rule 6, the motion shall include: (a) argument on whether satisfaction of the 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) standard is a necessary part of the good cause showing for discovery; and (b) points and authorities showing that the section 2254(d) standard is satisfied, based on the state court record, for every claim upon which petitioner seeks discovery.
3. By July 16, 2012, respondent shall file an opposition to the discovery motion.
4. By August 6, 2012, petitioner shall file any reply. The court will schedule argument if necessary.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.