(DP)(HC) Rangel v. Broomfield ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RANGEL, Case No. 1:18-cv-01713-AWI-SAB 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. ORDER PROVIDING FURTHER SCHEDULING 14 RONALD DAVIS, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, 15 Respondent.1 16 17 18 On December 14, 2018, Petitioner Pedro Rangel, a state prisoner facing capital 19 punishment, commenced this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 On February 25, 2020, Petitioner, through appointed counsel D. Jay Ritt and Verna 21 Wefald, filed in this proceeding his petition, including argument and points and authorities, 22 totaling 128 pages, supported by six exhibits. 23 On October 27, 2020, Respondent Warden Ronald Davis, through counsel Deputy 24 Attorney General Sally Espinoza, filed his answer to the petition, including all substantive and 25 procedural defenses, argument and points and authorities, totaling 76 pages. 26 27 1 Ron Broomfield, Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison, is substituted for Ronald Davis, former Warden of San Quentin State Prison, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25(d). 1 Accordingly, Petitioner shall file any reply to the answer by April 27, 2021. 2 The parties are advised that the Court will not entertain request(s) for summary judgment. 3 | Motions for evidentiary development and/or hearing may be filed only after the Court’s analysis 4 | of the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), and according to any schedule then provided by 5 | the Court. The merits of the claims alleged in the petition will be addressed prior to procedural 6 | defenses, and defenses under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989). 7 The Court will view any request to extend the above timeline with disfavor absent 8 | reasonably unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances showing good cause for an extension 9 | of time. 10 i IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 12 | Dated: _November 5, 2020_ Of UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28