(DP) Slaughter v. Stokes ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL COREY SLAUGHTER, Case No. 1:05-cv-00922-DAD 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 14 RON BROOMFIELD, Warden of the SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND California State Prison at San Quentin, SCHEDULING ORDER 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 153) 16 17 18 On July 6, 2022, counsel for petitioner moved the court for an order allowing 19 supplemental briefing on the effect of the Supreme Court’s recent opinions in Shinn v. Ramirez, 20 __U.S.__, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022) and Shoop v. Twyford, __U.S.__, 142 S. Ct. 2037 (2022), on 21 his pending Corrected Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Expansion of the Record and Discovery, 22 filed November 2, 2020. Petitioner has provided a proposed briefing schedule with his motion. 23 Counsel for petitioner represents that counsel for respondent, Deputy Attorney General 24 Ryan McConnell, does not oppose the motion and the proposed schedule for supplemental 25 briefing. 26 The court finds good cause to grant the motion upon the schedule agreed upon by counsel 27 for the parties. ///// 1 Accordingly, petitioner’s unopposed motion for supplemental briefing addressing the 2 |effect of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Ramirez and Twyford on his pending 3 | Corrected Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, Expansion of the Record and Discovery, is granted. 4 |Petitioner shall file his supplemental brief not later than sixty (60) days following service of 5 |this order. Respondent shall file his supplemental answer brief not later than sixty (60) days 6 | following the filing of petitioner’s brief. Petitioner shall file his supplemental reply brief not 7 later than forty-five (45) days following the filing of respondent’s brief. 8 9 T IS SO ORDERED. ~ 4 10 | Dated: _ July 13, 2022 LL 1 Yrod UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28