Case: Morales v. Hickman

3:06-cv-00219 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Jan. 11, 2006

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 11, 2006, several inmates at the state prison at San Quentin filed lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the California Department of Corrections in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs, all of whom were scheduled to be executed by lethal injection, alleged that their constitutional rights were threatened, arguing that lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth Amendment. They further argued that pancuroni…

On February 13, 2006, these cases were consolidated, with Michael Angelo Morales being treated as the lead plaintiff. On February 14, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Judge Jeremy Fogel) conditionally denied the plaintiff's request for a temporary stay of execution, stipulating that the stay would be granted unless the defendants certified in writing that they would either 1) use only sodium thiopental during the execution or 2) agree to obtain an independent verification by a medically qualified individual that the plaintiff is unconscious before he receives the lethal injection. Morales v. Hickman, 415 F.Supp.2d 1037 (N.D.Cal. 2006). The plaintiff appealed. On February 19, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a per curiam denial of the appeal. Morales v. Hickman, 438 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2006). The plaintiff sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 20, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. Morales v. Hickman, 546 U.S. 1163 (2006).

As the execution was about to commence on February 21, 2006, the two anesthesiologists designated by the defendants to certify that the plaintiff was unconscious declined to participate in the execution due to ethical concerns arising from their lack of understanding of certain language in the opinions that had been issued in the case. As a result of this hesitation, the execution did not go forward as scheduled. Later the same day, the District Court (Judge Fogel) again ordered the execution by lethal injection to go forward, using sodium thiopental. For reasons that are not specified in our documents, the execution was not carried out, the defendants were unwilling or unable to execute the plaintiff in accordance with the requirements of the District Court, and a stay of execution to permit an evidentiary hearing issued automatically pursuant to the District Court's order of February 14, 2006.

From September 26-29, 2006, the District Court held an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue. On December 15, 2006, the District Court (Judge Fogel) issued an opinion holding that it would be unconstitutional to inject a prisoner who was not unconscious and ordering the defendants to review and revise their execution procedures.

On January 16, 2007, the defendants responded to the district court's order, advising the court of their intent to revise the state's execution procedures and asking the court for a protective order that would allow them to obtain accurate and candid information necessary to the revision. On March 6, 2007, the District Court denied the motion for a protective order, holding that it was unnecessary. On May 15, 2007, the State of California issued the Lethal Injection Protocol Review, a document that discussed the history and procedures involved in lethal injection, as well as necessary changes that would be made to the procedure.

On July 2, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint alleging that the defendant's Lethal Injunction Protocol Review still created "a grave and substantial risk that Plaintiff will not be adequately unconscious during the execution process and, as a result, will experience an excruciatingly painful and protracted death." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs argued that the defendant's protocol represented an unconstitutional risk of severe pain.

On April 16, 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Baze v. Rees. In that case, the Court upheld Kentucky's lethal injection protocol as constitutional. Significant to the case at hand, the Kentucky protocol utilized the same three-drug cocktail as California's amended protocol does. The Court established that to show an 8th amendment violation, a plaintiff must prove that a State's lethal injection protocol "creates a demonstrated risk of severe pain. [They] must show that the risk is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives." The Court found that Kentucky's protocol did not violate this standard. Moreover, the plurality opinion held that "a lethal injection protocol substantially similar to the protocol we uphold today would not create a risk that meets this standard."

On October 8, 2010, the Plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint again alleging that the defendant's Lethal Injunction Protocol Review "will subject them to present demonstrated substantial risks of inflicting tortuous pain and suffering under the Eighth Amendment." Furthermore, the Plaintiffs contended that "Defendants' continued use of their three-drug procedure when tested, available alternatives exist establishes that the demonstrated risk of severe pain by Defendants' process is substantial when compared to the known and available alternatives. Defendants have refused to adopt such alternatives in the face of these documented advantages, without any legitimate penological justification for their continued retention of the three-drug protocol."

On October 25, 2010, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim. The defendants argued, "plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a facial challenge to California's regulations because the regulations are substantially similar to or exceed the regulations approved by the United States Supreme Court in Baze." Moreover, the motion argued, "Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to state a claim that, as written, California's regulations will necessarily subject Plaintiffs to a substantial risk of serious harm, where serious harm means severe pain." However, the defendants did not challenge the plaintiffs as applied challenge. On December 10, 2010, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. Given the defendants' burden at the motion to dismiss stage of the litigation, the court was unwilling to find that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim. However, the court made clear that it "intends to monitor closely the scope and pace of any additional discovery so that the merits of Plaintiffs' claims can be adjudicated promptly."

On June 19, 2013, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to intervene and to stay execution for an additional plaintiff. On September 17, 2013, the Court granted another motion to intervene for two more plaintiffs.

On November 7, 2014, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit called Winchell & Alexander v. Beard against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Sacramento County Superior Court. The plaintiffs were two individuals whose family members had been murdered by inmates currently on death row who are plaintiffs in Morales v. Hickman. The plaintiffs in Winchell & Alexander argued that as relatives of the victims they had been denied justice by the continued delays of the executions. This case was settled on June 2, 2015, when CDCR agreed to promulgate a single-drug lethal injection regulation within 120 days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Glossip v. Gross. See the CJLF's website for more information.

On June 29, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Glossip v. Gross that the sedative midazolam may be part of the lethal injection protocol. 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015).

On October 27, 2015 CDCR submitted its notice of proposed adoption of lethal injection regulations to the Office of Administrative Law for publication in the California Regulatory Notice Register, pursuant to the settlement in Winchell & Alexander v. Beard. According to California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's website, the notice was published in the register on November 6, 2015. The proposed regulations would change the death penalty protocol from the three-drug cocktail to a single drug.

In a new setback to efforts to restart executions in California, the state's Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has rejected the new lethal injection protocol proposed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. On December 28, 2016, the OAL, which is responsible for reviewing regulatory changes proposed in California, issued a 25-page decision of disapproval, citing inconsistencies, inadequate justification for certain parts of the proposal, and a failure to adequately respond to public comments. The agency gave the Department of Corrections four months to address problems in the protocol. See the Death Penalty Information Center website.

On April 18, 2018, Judge Seeborg granted a motion to relate the case of Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. Kernan to the Morales case. This suit was a First Amendment challenge to California's lethal injection protocol brought by Los Angeles Times Communications LLC and San Francisco Media Progressive Media Center. In response, defendants moved for reconsideration of the order relating the suits. Judge Seeborg denied the motion, arguing that it would be an "unduly burdensome duplication of labor" to have the cases tried separately.

On May 14, 2018, Judge Seeborg granted a motion to intervene by an inmate at San Quentin State Prison. The order also stipulated that his execution be stayed until the litigation ended.

On July 5, 2018, the San Mateo District Attorney moved to intervene in the case on the grounds that it was in their interests to protect the death judgement obtained for certain inmates. They sought intervention to vacate the stays of execution. Both the Riverside and San Bernardino District Attorneys moved to intervene on similar grounds. Judge Seeborg issued an order denying the motions to intervene on the grounds that the District Attorneys' interests were already being represented by the defendants in the case. In August of 2018, the San Mateo, Riverside, and San Bernardino District Attorney's appealed. The appeal was later denied in January of 2020 in light of the settlement negotiations.

On October 31, 2018, an additional inmate moved to intervene and sought a stay of his execution. Two additional inmate moved to intervene and sought a stay of their executions in November of 2018. These motions were denied without prejudice for procedural reasons, leaving a possibility for them to intervene if they filed an amended complaint.

On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that the executions violated the Eight Amendment.

Two days later, plaintiffs moved to have their suit referred to a Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge following California Governor Newsom's Executive Order issued March 13, 2019, which placed a moratorium on the death penalty in California. Judge Seeborg granted this motion and the Settlement Conference was referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

	Document
3:06-cv-00219	Docket (PACER) Morales v. Tilton	Jan. 22, 2020	Jan. 22, 2020 Docket
1 3:06-cv-00219	Complaint	Jan. 11, 2006	Jan. 11, 2006 Complaint
6 3:06-cv-00219	Motion for Expedited Discovery and to Compel Production of Documents	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12 3:06-cv-00219	Motion for TRO	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief
1 06-cv-00926	Complaint Morales v. Tilton	Feb. 10, 2006	Feb. 10, 2006 Complaint
3 3:06-cv-00219	Order Consolidating Cases Morales v. Tilton	Feb. 13, 2006	Feb. 13, 2006 Order/Opinion
78 3:06-cv-00219 06-cv-00926	Order on Defendant's Motion to Proceed with Execution Under Alternative Condition	Feb. 14, 2006	Feb. 14, 2006 Order/Opinion
62 3:06-cv-00219 06-cv-00926	Order	Feb. 14, 2006	Feb. 14, 2006 Order/Opinion 415 F.Supp.2d 1037
06-99002	Appellant's Opening Brief U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief
06-99002	Application for Stay of Execution U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT for Equitable and Injunctive Relief against Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski ( Filing fee $ 250, receipt number 3380416.) Filed byMichael A. Morales. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/24/2006 (gm, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 1/27/2006 (gm, COURT STAFF). (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/17/2019: # (2) Civil Cover Sheet) (rcsS, COURT STAFF). 1 Exhibit View on PACER 2 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	Jan. 13, 2006	Jan. 13, 2006 RECAP
	CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2006)	Jan. 13, 2006	Jan. 13, 2006 PACER
	Summons Issued	Jan. 13, 2006	Jan. 13, 2006 PACER
	Summons Issued as to Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2006)	Jan. 13, 2006	Jan. 13, 2006 PACER
	Case Referred to ECF	Jan. 13, 2006	Jan. 13, 2006 PACER
2	ORDER RELATING CASE signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 18, 2006. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2006)	Jan. 18, 2006	Jan. 18, 2006 PACER
3	SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 1/19/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2006)	Jan. 19, 2006	Jan. 19, 2006 PACER
4	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Jeremy Fogel for all further proceedings. Judge Maxine M. Chesney no longer assigned to case.Signed by Executive Committee on 1/19/06. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2006)	Jan. 19, 2006	Jan. 19, 2006 PACER
5	FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET #1 COMPLAINT against all defendants (Filing fee $ 250.). Filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006) Modified on 1/24/2006 (gm, COURT STAFF). 1 Exhibit A View on PACER	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
6	MOTION for Discovery filed by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 RECAP
7	Declaration of John R Grele filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
8	Proposed Order Granting Discovery by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
9	MOTION to Shorten Time to Hear Discovery Motion filed by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
10	Declaration in support of Motion to Shorten Time filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
11	Proposed Order to Shorten Time by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
12	MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Michael A. Morales. Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2006 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 RECAP
13	EXHIBITS re [12] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Exhibit A filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[12]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 RECAP
14	EXHIBITS re [12] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Exhibit B filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[12]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
15	EXHIBITS re [12] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order Exhibit C (Heath Decl.) filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Curriculum Vitae# (2) Exhibit Execution Logs# (3) Exhibit Rocconi Declaration# (4) Exhibit Derswitz Decl in Cooper# (5) Exhibit AVMA report# (6) Exhibit ASA Advisory# (7) Exhibit Dershwitz Aff in Perkins# (8) Exhibit Williams Execution Article)(Related document(s)[12]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006) 1 Exhibit Curriculum Vitae View on PACER 2 Exhibit Execution Logs View on PACER 3 Exhibit Rocconi Declaration View on PACER 4 Exhibit Derswitz Decl in Cooper View on PACER 5 Exhibit AVMA report View on PACER 6 Exhibit ASA Advisory View on PACER 7 Exhibit Dershwitz Aff in Perkins View on PACER 8 Exhibit Williams Execution Article View on PACER	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
16	Proposed Order re [12] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 PACER
17	Memorandum in Opposition TO APPLICATION TO TRO filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/23/2006)	Jan. 23, 2006	Jan. 23, 2006 PACER
18	EXHIBITS PART 1 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/23/2006)	Jan. 23, 2006	Jan. 23, 2006 PACER
19	EXHIBITS PART 2 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/23/2006)	Jan. 23, 2006	Jan. 23, 2006 PACER
20	NOTICE by Steven Ornoski LODGING DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/23/2006)	Jan. 23, 2006	Jan. 23, 2006 PACER
21	Reply Memorandum in Support of Motions for TRO and Discovery filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/25/2006)	Jan. 25, 2006	Jan. 25, 2006 PACER
22	EXHIBITS re [21] Reply Memorandum filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 to Heath Declaration# (2) Exhibit 2 to Heath Declaration# (3) Exhibit 3 to Heath Declaration)(Related document(s)[21]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/25/2006) 1 Exhibit 1 to Heath Declaration View on PACER 2 Exhibit 2 to Heath Declaration View on PACER 3 Exhibit 3 to Heath Declaration View on PACER	Jan. 25, 2006	Jan. 25, 2006 PACER
23	* FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT LOCKED. PLEASE SEE DOCKET #[24]. * EXHIBITS re [21] Reply Memorandum Exhibit A (Senior Declaration) filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[21]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/25/2006) Modified on 1/25/2006 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/26/2006 (ewn, COURT STAFF).	Jan. 25, 2006	Jan. 25, 2006 PACER
24	EXHIBITS re [21] Reply Memorandum Exhbiit A (Senior Decalration) CORRECTION OF DOCKET # [23] filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[21]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/25/2006)	Jan. 25, 2006	Jan. 25, 2006 PACER
25	EXHIBITS re [6] MOTION for Discovery Exhibit A filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[6]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/26/2006)	Jan. 26, 2006	Jan. 26, 2006 PACER
26	Minute Entry: Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Discovery Hearing held on 1/26/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel (Date Filed: 1/27/2006). Court sets the case for Preliminary Injunction hearing on 2/9/2006 at 2:00 p.m. (Court Reporter Peter Torreano.) (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/27/2006)	Jan. 27, 2006	Jan. 27, 2006 PACER
27	Second MOTION for Discovery filed by Michael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Exhibit 1 (discovery request)# (2) Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Discovery response)# (3) Exhibit Exhibit 3 (second request)# (4) Exhibit Exhibit 4 (second response)# (5) Exhibit Exhibit 5 (Admin Review))(Grele, John) (Filed on 1/27/2006) 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 (discovery request) View on PACER 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Discovery response) View on PACER 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 (second request) View on PACER 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 (second response) View on PACER 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 (Admin Review) View on PACER	Jan. 27, 2006	Jan. 27, 2006 PACER
28	Proposed Order re [27] Second MOTION for Discovery by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 1/27/2006)	Jan. 27, 2006	Jan. 27, 2006 PACER
29	Memorandum in Opposition DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF DISCOVERY REQUEST filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 1/30/2006)	Jan. 30, 2006	Jan. 30, 2006 PACER
30	ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY by Judge Jeremy Fogel (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2006 AT 11:34 A.M.) Modified on 2/1/2006 (jfsec, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 1, 2006	Feb. 1, 2006 RECAP
31	TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 1/26/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel. Court Reporter: Peter Torreano.. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2006) (Entered: 02/02/2006)	Feb. 1, 2006	Feb. 1, 2006 PACER
32	Memorandum in Opposition DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITIONTO MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
33	EXHIBITS filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
34	EXHIBITS PART 1 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
35	EXHIBITS PART 2 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
36	EXHIBITS PART 3 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
37	EXHIBITS PART 4 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
38	EXHIBITS PART 5 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
39	EXHIBITS PART 6 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
40	EXHIBITS PART 7 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
41	EXHIBITS PART 8 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
42	MEMORANDUM in Support Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
43	EXHIBITS PART 9 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
44	EXHIBITS PART 10 filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
45	EXHIBITS PART 11 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
46	EXHIBITS PART 12 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
47	EXHIBITS PART 13 filed byRoderick Q. Hickman. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/6/2006)	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
48	EXHIBITS re [42] Memorandum in Support filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 -- Taylor Motion to Dismiss# (2) Exhibit 2 Taylor Declaration in Support of Stay# (3) Exhibit 3 Taylor Minute Orders# (4) Exhibit 4 Taylor Denial of Relief# (5) Exhibit 5: 8th Circuit Stay Order# (6) Exhibit 6: Declaration of Dr. Melenthil# (7) Exhibit 7: Dr. Heath Declaration# (8) Taylor 8th Cir. Brief# (9) Exhibit 9: Reid Transcript)(Related document(s)[42]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/6/2006) 1 Exhibit 1 -- Taylor Motion to Dismiss View on PACER 2 Exhibit 2 Taylor Declaration in Support of Stay View on PACER 3 Exhibit 3 Taylor Minute Orders View on PACER 4 Exhibit 4 Taylor Denial of Relief View on PACER 5 Exhibit 5: 8th Circuit Stay Order View on PACER 6 Exhibit 6: Declaration of Dr. Melenthil View on PACER 7 Exhibit 7: Dr. Heath Declaration View on PACER 8 Taylor 8th Cir. Brief View on PACER 9 Exhibit 9: Reid Transcript View on PACER	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
50	Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to David A. Senior. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 6, 2006	Feb. 6, 2006 PACER
49	Minute Entry: Preliminary Injunction Hearing held on 2/9/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel (Date Filed: 2/9/2006). (Court Reporter Peter Torreano.) (pmc, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/9/2006)	Feb. 9, 2006	Feb. 9, 2006 PACER
51	AMENDED DOCUMENT by Michael A. Morales. Amendment to [1] Complaint, Amended Complaint. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/10/2006)	Feb. 10, 2006	Feb. 10, 2006 PACER
52	MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by Michael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration in support)(Grele, John) (Filed on 2/10/2006) 1 Declaration in support View on PACER	Feb. 10, 2006	Feb. 10, 2006 PACER
53	Proposed Order re [52] MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/10/2006)	Feb. 10, 2006	Feb. 10, 2006 PACER
54	ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/13/06, E-filed at 8:39 A.M. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2006)	Feb. 13, 2006	Feb. 13, 2006 RECAP
55	ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO CONSOLIDATE by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting [52] Motion to Consolidate Cases (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2006)	Feb. 13, 2006	Feb. 13, 2006 PACER
56	Reply Memorandum Defendants' response to court inquiry filed bySteven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/13/2006)	Feb. 13, 2006	Feb. 13, 2006 RECAP
61	TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 2/9/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel. Court Reporter: Perer Torreano.. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 13, 2006	Feb. 13, 2006 PACER
57	Reply Memorandum to Court's Inquiry filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A -- news article)(Grele, John) (Filed on 2/14/2006) 1 Exhibit A -- news article View on PACER	Feb. 14, 2006	Feb. 14, 2006 PACER
58	Declaration of Mark Heath, M.D. in Support of [57] Reply Memorandum to Court's Inquiry filed byMichael A. Morales. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 to Heath Declaration# (2) Exhibit 2 to Heath Declaration# (3) Exhibit 4 to Heath Declaration# (4) Exhibit 5 to Heath Declaration)(Related document(s)[57]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/14/2006) 1 Exhibit 1 to Heath Declaration View on PACER 2 Exhibit 2 to Heath Declaration View on PACER 3 Exhibit 4 to Heath Declaration View on PACER 4 Exhibit 5 to Heath Declaration View on PACER	Feb. 14, 2006	Feb. 14, 2006 RECAP
59	EXHIBITS re [58] Declaration in Support, Exhibit 3 to Heath Declaration filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[58]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/14/2006)	Feb. 14, 2006	Feb. 14, 2006 RECAP
60	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Michael A. Morales. Michael A. Morales served on 1/19/2006, answer due 2/8/2006. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/14/2006)	Feb. 14, 2006	Feb. 14, 2006 PACER
62	ORDER DENYING CONDITIONALLY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Jeremy Fogel (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2006)	Feb. 14, 2006	Feb. 14, 2006 RECAP
63	RESPONSE in Support redacted statement of compliance with conditional injunction filed byRoderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/15/2006)	Feb. 15, 2006	Feb. 15, 2006 PACER
64	MOTION for Discovery of Information filed by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/15/2006)	Feb. 15, 2006	Feb. 15, 2006 PACER
65	Reply Memorandum Plaintiff's Response to Modification of Procedure filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/16/2006)	Feb. 16, 2006	Feb. 16, 2006 PACER
66	AFFIDAVIT supplemental response to denial of injunction by Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/16/2006)	Feb. 16, 2006	Feb. 16, 2006 PACER
67	FINAL ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION AND FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/16/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2006)	Feb. 16, 2006	Feb. 16, 2006 RECAP
68	NOTICE OF INTELOCUTORY APPEAL as to [67] Order, [62] Order on Motion to Shorten Time, Order on Motion for TRO by Michael A. Morales. Filing fee $ 255.00, receipt number 338190. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/28/2006 (gm, COURT STAFF). (Main Document 68 replaced on 5/17/2019) (rcsS, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 PACER
	Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 PACER
69	AFFIDAVIT notice of lodging declarations under seal by Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/17/2006)	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 PACER
	Notice of Appeal Notification	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 PACER
70	NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF RECEIPT OF DECLARATIONS. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/17/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2006)	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 RECAP
	Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2006)	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 PACER
	Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 68 Notice of Appeal (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2006)	Feb. 17, 2006	Feb. 17, 2006 PACER
71	Ex Parte Application for compliance order filed by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/20/2006)	Feb. 20, 2006	Feb. 20, 2006 PACER
72	Proposed Order for compliance by Michael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/20/2006)	Feb. 20, 2006	Feb. 20, 2006 PACER
73	MOTION to Amend/Correct Defendants' motion to proceed with alternative method of execution filed by Roderick Q. Hickman, Steven Ornoski. (Gillette, Dane) (Filed on 2/21/2006)	Feb. 21, 2006	Feb. 21, 2006 PACER
74	ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel denying petitioner's ex parte application and motion for stay (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2006)	Feb. 21, 2006	Feb. 21, 2006 RECAP
79	TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Proceedings held on 2/21/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel. Court Reporter: Peter Torreano.. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2006) (Entered: 02/22/2006)	Feb. 21, 2006	Feb. 21, 2006 PACER
75	Minute Entry: Motion to Proceed with Execution hearing held on 2/21/2006 before Judge Jeremy Fogel (Date Filed: 2/21/2006). The motion is taken under submission. (Court Reporter Peter Torreano.) (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/21/2006)	Feb. 21, 2006	Feb. 21, 2006 PACER
76	Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Modification filed byMichael A. Morales. (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/21/2006)	Feb. 21, 2006	Feb. 21, 2006 PACER
77	Declaration in Support of [76] Reply Memorandum Fifth Declaration of Dr. Heath filed byMichael A. Morales. (Related document(s)[76]) (Grele, John) (Filed on 2/21/2006)	Feb. 21, 2006	Feb. 21, 2006 PACER
78	ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROCEED WITH EXECUTION UNDER ALTERNATIVE CONDITION TO ORDER DENYING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/21/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2006)	Feb. 21, 2006	Feb. 21, 2006 RECAP
80	Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to California Appellate Project. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 21, 2006	Feb. 21, 2006 PACER
82	MOTION for Attorney Ginger Anders for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (FEE PAID) filed by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 22, 2006	Feb. 22, 2006 PACER
	Received Order re 85 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006)	Feb. 22, 2006	Feb. 22, 2006 PACER
83	MOTION for Attorney Janice H. Lam for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (FEE PAID) filed by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 22, 2006	Feb. 22, 2006 PACER
84	MOTION for Attorney Stephanie L. Reinhart for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (FEE PAID) filed by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 22, 2006	Feb. 22, 2006 PACER
	Received Order re 84 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006)	Feb. 22, 2006	Feb. 22, 2006 PACER
85	MOTION for Attorney Richard P. Steinken leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice (FEE PAID) filed by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 22, 2006	Feb. 22, 2006 PACER
	Received Order	Feb. 22, 2006	Feb. 22, 2006 PACER
	Received Order re 83 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006)	Feb. 22, 2006	Feb. 22, 2006 PACER
	Received Order re 82 MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice by Michael A. Morales. (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2006)	Feb. 22, 2006	Feb. 22, 2006 PACER
81	ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 2/23/06. (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2006) Modified on 2/23/2006 (jfsec, COURT STAFF).	Feb. 23, 2006	Feb. 23, 2006 RECAP
86	Emergency Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution received by the Court 2/21/06 at 12:07 A.M. filed by John R. Grele on behalf of Plaintiff Michael A. Morales. Order issued [74] (jfsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2006)	Feb. 27, 2006	Feb. 27, 2006 PACER
88	ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel granting [82] Motion for Attorney Ginger Anders for admission Pro Hac Vice (gm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2006) (mhpsec, COURT STAFF).	March 2, 2006	March 2, 2006 PACER

Case: Morales v. Hickman

3:06-cv-00219 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details