2015 Jun-I Pri 3:21: B-Mail: Thomas - Patterson@Doj - Ca.Gov Attorneys For Respondent Jeffrey A. Beard

\ - V-' ;-.
:3D
KAMALA _
2
3
4
5
6
Attomey &ê)S^fiali?om?a ^'^

^, .(^,,55
S uperv isi ngf Deputy Attbrnfe^jiêrieral
State BarNo'.M2^90.-,poRUlA
455 Goldcn.Cj^^fi^rdTiQ^
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5727
Fax: (415)703-5843
B-mail: Thomas.Patterson@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Respondent Jeffrey A. Beard
2015 JUn-I PrI 3:21
THOMAS S. PATIERSON
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11
BRADLEY WINCHELL and
12
13
14
CaseNo. 34-2014-80001968
KERMIT ALEXANDER,
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF

Petitioners,
JUDGMENT
V.
15
16
J E F F R E Y A. BEARD,
Respondent.
17
18
19
INTRODUCTION
This Stipulation for Entry ofjudgment (Stipulation) is entered into by and between
20
petitioners, Bradley Winchell and Kermit Alexander, and respondent, Jeffrey A. Beard, acting as
21
Secretary of the California Depai tment of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Petitioners,
22
Bradley Winchell and Kermit Alexander, and respondent, Jeffrey A. Beard, are collectively
23
referred to here as the Parties.
24
The Parties have negotiated a settlement, as described below, whereby CDCR must
25
commence the promulgation of proposed regulatory standards regarding executions carried out by
26
lethal injection within a prescribed timeframe. Consistent with this settlement, the Parties
27
respectfully request that the Court sign and enter their proposed Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation,
28
including retention of jurisdiction to enforce paragraphs 1 through 3 of the stipulation below

Stipulation for Entr>' ofjudgment (34-2014-80001968)
pursuant to section 664.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. CDCR commits that once it has begun
lhe rulemaking process by filing its package with the Office of Administrative Law pursuant to
sections 11340-11361 of the Govemment Code, it will work toward the timely completion of the
rulemaking process in good faith.
The Parties stipulate as follows:
6
7
CASE SUMMARY
On November 7, 2014, Petitioners filed a Verified Petition for Peremptory Wril of Mandate
in Sacramenlo Superior Court requesting, inter alia, that the Court issue a preemptoiy writ of
mandate directing CDCR to promulgate a temporary lethal-injection regulation within 30 days
10
and to commence within 30 days the procedure for promulgating a permanent lethal-injection
11
regulation. A true copy of the Petition is attached hereto as Exhibit I . On December 23, 2014,
12
CDCR demurred to the petition, contending that the promulgation of lethal-injection regulations
13
is a discretionary act that is not subject to writ relief. The Court overruled CDCR's demurrer on
14
February 11, 2015.
15
16
NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY
Respondent expressly denies that Petitioners are entitled to any of the relief sought in the
17
Petition. The Parties, however, now desire and intend by this Stipulation to settle all disputes
18
between them relating to the claims alleged in the Petition, including any rights to appeal and that
19
concem in any way the claims of the Petition, and to discharge each other from any and all
20
liability with reference to such claims, except as specifically set forth in this Stipulation.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JURISDICTION
The Parties agree that the Superior Court of Sacramento County has jurisdiction over the
Parties and over the subject matter alleged in the Petition.
WAIVER OF HEARING
The Parties waive their right to a hearing on the matters alleged in the Petition.
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
By entering into this Stipulation, the Parties will request that the Courl enter judgment in
this matter in the form of the Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
2
Stipulation for Entry ofjudgment (34-2014-80001968)
1
2
3
4
STIPULATION PROVISIONS
In full and complete setllement of any and all claims in the Petition, the Parties agree lo the
following:
1)
No later than 120 days after the United States Supreme Court issues its opinion or
other disposition in Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, CDCR shall commence promulgation of
proposed regulatory standards regarding executions carried out by lethal injection by submitting a
nolice of proposed rulemaking, initial statement of reasons, and the text oflhe proposed
regulations to the Office of Administrative Law, as described by Government Code sections
11346.2 and 11346.5;
]0
2)
If circumstances materially impede CDCR's ability to do so, the parties shall meet
]]
and confer to discuss an extension of the parties' agreement by an additional 30 days or more, but
12
no extension will be made without the Petitioners' con.senl;
13
3)
Petitioners shall be paid reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $10,000,
14
within 60 days of the Court entering judgment under this Stipulation. Petitioners understand lhat
15
payment may be delayed by evenl:s not attributable to Respondent or CDCR, such as the lack of a
16
State budget or the processing of the payment al the State Controller's Office; and
17
4)
The Parties stipulate to the entr>' ofjudgment, subject lo the Court's retention of
18
jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of paragraphs I through 3 of this stipulation pursuant to
19
Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.
20
21
GENERAL RELEASE
It is the intention oflhe Parties in signing this Stipulation lhat it shall bc effective as a full
22
and final accord and satisfaction and release from any and all claims asserted in the Petition,
23
except lhat Petitioners may file a new aciion if, after CDCR has begun the promulgation process
24
required by this Stipulation, Petitioners contend lhat CDCR has improperly delayed in completing
25
the promulgation process. Subject lo this exception, by signing this Stipulation, Petitioners
26
release CDCR, all respondents, whether named or unnamed and whether served or unserved, and
27
any other past or current CDCR employees, from all claims, past or present, known or unknown,
28
that arise from the facts alleged in the Petition, including all alleged violations of those provisions
Stipulation for Entr>'of Judgment (34-2014-80001968)
ofCalifornia Government Code sections 11340.6-11340.7 and California Penal Code section
3604(a), which are the subject of the Petition.
3
4
In furtherance of this intention, the Parties acknowledge that they are familiar with, and
expressly waive, the provisions of Califomia Civil Code section 1542, which stales:
5
6
7
g
IQ
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does nol know or
suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if
known by him or her must have materially affected his or her selilement with the
debtor.
This Stipulation is the compromise of various disputed claims and shall not be treated as an
admission of liability by any oflhe Parties for any purpose. The signature of or on behalf of the
respective Parties does not indicate or acknowledge the validity or merits of any claim or demand
12
of the other Parly.
13
14
AUTHORITY TO ENTER STIPULATION

Ecich signatory to this Stipulation certifies lhat he or she is fully authorized by the parly or
15
parties he or she represents lo enter into this Stipulation, to execute it on behalf of the party or
jg
parties represented, to make representations on behalf of said party or parties, and to bind such
IJ
party or parties.
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

This Stipulation shall be binding on the Parties and their respective officers, agents,
2Q
administrators, successors, assignees, heirs, executors, trustees, attorneys, consultants, and any
21
committee or arrangement of creditors organized with respect to the affairs of any such party.
22
Petitioners and their principals, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, heirs, descendants,
executors, representatives, partners, and associates fully release and discharge the Respondent
24
and his principals, agents, attorneys, successors, assigns, heirs, descendants, executors,
25
representatives, partners, and associates from all rights, claims, and actions that Petitioners and
2g
their successors now may have or at any lime in the future may have against the Respondent and
27
his successors.
28
4
Stipulation for Entrj- ofjudgment (34-2014-80001968)
1
2
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARR/VNTIES

No other consideration. The consideration recited in this Stipulation is the only
consideration for this Stipulation, and no representations, promises, or inducements have been
made to the Parties, or any of their representatives, other lhan those set forth in this Stipulation.
Execution in counterpart. This Stipulation may be executed simultaneously in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument.
Execution of further documents. Each party to this Stipulation shall complete, execute or
cause to be executed such further and other documents as are needed to carry out the expressed
10
11
intent and purpose of this Stipulation.

Entire agreement. This Stipulation constitutes a single, integrated agreement expressing the
12
entire agreement of the Parties, and there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or
13
implied, between the Parties, except as set forth in this Stipulation.
14
No oral modifications or waiver. No supplement, modification, or amendment lo this
15
Stipulation shall be binding unless executed in writing by all the Parties. No waiver of any
16
provision of this Stipulation shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the
17
waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Stipulation shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a
18
waiver of any olher provision, whether or not similar, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing
19
waiver.
20
21
Governing law. Unless expressly stated otherwise in this Stipulation, the terms, conditions,
and provisions of this Stipulation are governed by and interpreted under California stale law.
22
Severability^ Should any provision of this Stipulation be held invalid or illegal, such
23
illegality shall not invalidate the whole of this Stipulation, but the Stipulation shall be construed
24
as if it did not contain the illegal part, and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be
25
construed and enforced accordingly.
26
27
28
E F F E C T I V E DATE
This Stipulation may be executed in two or more counletparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and tlie same instrument. This
Stipulation shall become effective on the date upon which Respondent signs this Stipulation.
EQUAL AUTHORITY
5
6
This Stipulation shall be deemed to have been drafted equally by all Parties.
9
10
ITIS SO STIPULATED.
11
12
13
Dated:
5"'J2
^2015
BRADLEY WINCHELL
14
15
Dated:
17
2015
KERMl
18
19
20
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
21
22
23
Dated:
24
25
.,2015
JEFFREY BEARD, Ph.D.

Secretary, California Department of Cotxections and Rehabilitation
26
27
28
Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (34-2014-80001968)
E F F E C T I V E DATE
This Stipulation may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This
Stipulation shall become effective on the date upon which Respondent signs this Stipulation.
EQUAL AUTHORITY
This Stipulation shall be deemed to have been drafted equally by all Parties.
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
11
12
13
Dated:
, 2015
Dated:
,2015
BRADLEY WINCHELL
14
15
1^
J7
KERMIT ALEXANDER
18
19
20
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
21
22
'
"
Dated^â//^
,2015
24 .riunaw BE^Rcr pfi:D.

, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
25
'
26
27
28
6
Approved as to form:
Dated: JQKA^
I^
Z,^^
K A M A L A D . HARRIS
Attomey General of Califomia

4
THOMAS S. PATTERSON
Supervising Deputy Attomey General
Attorneys for Respondent Jeffrey A. Beard
5
6
7
8
Dated: { ^ - ^ I
^^(-^
KENT SCHEIDEGGER
Criminal Justice LegaflF^ndation

Attorney for Petitioners Bradley Winchell
and Kennit Alexander
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
SF2014410297
Stipulation for Entry of Judgment_Rev4.doc
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT I
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
Service of Process Cover Sheet
11 '^
Dale &. Time SinniD
Service of Process Disclaimer:
To All Persons Attempting Service of Process Upon the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation:
Please be advised that staff assigned to receive documents delivered to the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation's office are not authorized to accept such documents as properly sei"ved. In receiving documents delivered
by process servers and other members of the public, office personnel do not thereby waive any right of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Office of Legal Affairs, any division within the California Departmentof Corrections and Rehabilitation, or any individual to object to the validity of the service.
Please complete this form when delivering documenls to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation:
Cuiiniy/Disirici
(\
Dociiment(s)
Served:
Coiin No.
Summons and Complainl/Cross Complainl/Amended

Complaint
"Notice to the Atlorney General's Office pursuant to
Section
Petition for Relief From Laie Claim Filing
(Govt. Code section 946.6)
Pitchcss.Motion
IM\
VJ
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Notice of Consumer or Employee and Objection and
check for $15.00
Writ of Mandate artd CoiH(;laiiil fo; Dtidarntor-y.
Other (Please List):
Small Claims
Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business
Records
Document(s) For:
(Specify Person or Division)
Process Ser\'er's
Name
5-
Name of Company:
(Business Name, Address,
und Teleplwne /dumber)
FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS STAFF USE ONI^Y

.Office of Legal
Affairs Signature:
Forward To:
Person Accepting
Service:
(Name, Tille, und
Telephone Number)
Notes:
The anached document(s) appear(s) to be the responsibility of your section; if they are not. please retum them to the Office of Legal
Affairs, and the person named above, noting the section to which they are to be directed.
FILEO
4
5
6
KENT S. SCHEIDEGGER (SBN 105178)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION
2131 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 446-0345 (Voice)
(916) 446-1194(Fax)
Kent.Scheidegger@cjlf org
Superior Court Of Californiaj

Sacramento
Attomey for Petitioners

Bradley S. Winchell and Keimit Alexander
34-2014-80001
lgutierrez2
Sjf
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF TIIE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
>
9
10
11
12
13
BRADLEY S. WINCHELL and

K E : R M I T ALEXANDER,
Petitioners,
vs.
14
JEFFREY A. BEARD, Secretary,

California Department of CoiTections and
Rehabilitation,
15
Respondent.
Case No.
VERTFIED PETITION
FOR PEREMPTORY W^^RIT
OF MANDATE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Verified Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate
J Deputy
Petitioners petition this Court for a writ of mandate directed to Respondent
1
2
JEFFREY A. BEARD, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, and by this petition allege:
1. Petitioner BRADLEY S. WINCHELL is a citizen of Califomia and a California
taxpayer. His sister, Terri Winchell, was murdered. Michael Morales was convicted of
tliis crime and sentenced to death, and thejudgment was affmned by the California
Supreme Coiurt in People v. Morales (1989) 48 CaL3d 527. Petitioner Winchell is a victim
of this crime within the meaning of article I, section 28, subdivision (e) of the California
Constittttion.
10
2. Petitioner KERMIT ALEXANDER is a citizen of California atid a California
11
taxpayer. His mother, sister, and nephews, Ebora Alexander, Dietra Alexander, Damon
12
Bomier, and Damani Gamer, were murdered. Tiequon Cox was convicted of tliis crime and
13
sentenced to death, and the judgment was affirmed by die California Supreme Coturt in
14
People V. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618. Petitioner Alexander is a victim of this crime within
15
the meaning of article I , section 28, subdivision (e) of the Cahfomia Constitution.
16
17
3. Respondent JEFFREY A. BEÂRD is the Secretary of tlie California Department

of Corrections and Rehabihtation (CDCR).
18
19
4. CDCR is responsible for estabhshing standards for the execution of sentences of

deatli. (Pen. Code, 3604, subd. (a), 5000.)
20
5. On February 14, 2006, the Federal District Court for the Northem District of
21
Califomia conditionally denied Michael Morales's motion for a preliminary injunction
22
against his execution. The order permitted CDCR to proceed if it adopted a suigle-dnig,
23
barbiturate-only method in lieu of the three-drug method prescribed by the existing
24
protocol. (Morales v. Hickman (ND Cal. 2006) 415 F.Supp.2d 1037, 1047, affd. 438 F.3d
25
926.)
26
27
6. On May 15, 2007, CDCR amended its execution protocol, staying with a threedrug method despite the federal district court order. This protocol was enjoined by the
28
-1 -
Superior Court for Marin County for failure to comply with the Califoraia Administrative
Procedure Act, and the Court: of Appeal for the First District affirmed. (Morales v. CDCR
(2008) 168 CaLApp.4th 729, 732.)
7. On April 16, 2009, CDCR published a notice promulgating another tliree-drug
5 protocol as Cahfomia Code of Regulations, title 15, sections 3349-3349.4.6. After one
6 revision, the Office of Administrative Law approved the regulations on July 30, 2010. Tliis
7 protocol was again enjoined by the Superior Court for Marin Count}'^ for failure to comply
8 with the California Administrative Procedure Act, and the Com-t of Appeal for the First
9 District again affirmed in pertinent part. (Sims v. CDCR (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1059.)
10
11
8. On April 26, 2012, in its notice of appeal in the case referred to in paragraph 7,
CDCR advised the court, through counsel, that "under the Governor's direction, [CDCR]
12 will also begin the process of considering altemative regulatory protocols, including a one13 drug protocol, for carrying out die death penalty." Over two and a half yeai's later, no such
14 protocol has been promulgated.
15
9. On information and belief, all reviews of die sentences of Michael Morales and
16 Tiequon Cox have been completed and none are pending. The sentences in tiiese cases
17 have gone unexecuted since 2006 in the case of Morales and since 2011 in the case of Cox
18 solely because CDCR has failed to adopt an execution protocol meeting the requhemeiits
19 established in the decisions referred to in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7.
20
21
10. On information and belief. Respondent CDCR has already drafted a

barbiturate-only protocol in response to the Governor's direcrion refeired to in paragi-aph 8,
22 but has failed to tal<e the steps necessary to make it legally available for use.
23
11. On September 16, 2014, Petitioner KERMIT ALEXANDER petitioned CDCR
24 pm-suant to section 11340.6 of the Government Code to adopt regulations for lethal
25 injection, both as a permanent regulation through the Administrative Procedure Act and on
26 an immediate, interim basis pursuant to the "operational needs" exception of section
27 5058.3 of the Penal Code. The petition also noted two possible forms of alternate relief
28
-2-
that CDCR might tmdertalce, as permitted by section 11340.7, subdivision (b) of tlie
2 Government Code. A tme and correct copy of the petition is attached as Exhibit A. By
>
J
letter of October 16, 2014, CDCR denied the petition, statmg its reasons for not granting
4 the alternative relief, but giving no reason whatever for denying die petition to promulgate
5 a regulation. A tme and correct copy of the denial is attached as Exhibit B.
6
12. On September 17, 2014, Petitioner BRADLEY S. WINCI-IELL petitioned
7 CDCR pursuant to section 11340.6 of tlie Govemment Code to adopt regulations for lethal
8 injection, both as a permanent regulation through the Administrative Procediu-e Act and on
9 an immediate, interim basis pursuant to the "operational needs" exception of section
10 5058.3 of tlie Penal Code. The petition also noted two possible forms of alternate relief
11
that CDCR might uiidertalce, as permitted by section 11340.7, subdivision (b) of the
12 Govemment Code. A tme and correct copy of the petition is attached as Exiiibit C. By
13 letter of October 16, 2014, CDCR denied the petition, stating reasons for not granting die
14 alternative relief but giving no reason whatever for denying the petition to promulgate a
15 regulation. A tme and correct copy of die denial is attached as Exhibit D.
16
13. On October 20, 2014, cotmsel for Petitioners hiformed CDCR that the denial
17 was in violation of section 11340.7 of the Government Code for failure to state reasons. A
18 true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exiiibit E. To date Petitioners have
19 received no response.
20
21
14. As immediate relatives of victims murdered by murderers whose execution is

prevented by Respondent's failure to estabhsh standards. Petitioners are "uiterested
22 persons" within the meaning of section 11340.6 of the Government Code. Petitioners have
23 an interest over and above tliat of the general public m that their constitutional right to "a
24 prompt and final conclusion of tlie case and any related post-judgment proceedings" (Cal.
25 Const., art. I, 28, subd. (b)(9)), i.e., execution of thejudgment, has been violated as well
26 as their "riglit to an expeditious and just puiiishtiient of the criminal wi'ongdoer."
27 (Proposition 9 of 2008, 2.) Petitioners have standing botii under general principles of
28
-3 -
standing and article I, section 28, subdivision (c)(1) of the Califomia Constitution. In
2 addition, Petitioners as citizens of Califomia have a right shared by all tlie people that
o
sentences imposed "shall be carried out in compliance with the coiuts' sentencmg orders"
4 (Cal. Const., art. I, 28, subd. (f)(5)), and therefore have "public interest" standing.
5
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Failure to Establish Standards Under Penal Code 3604(a))
15. Petitioners reallege paragraphs 1 through 14 of this petition as though fully set
8 foitli herein.
9
16. Respondent has a legal duty under section 3604, subdivision (a) of die Penal
10 Code to establish standards for the administration of lethal injection. By failure for over
11 eiglit years to establish standards meeting legal requirements to execute judgments,
12 Respondent has violated Ins duty and abused his discretion.
13
17. Petitioners have a right to have this duty performed, both as beneficially
14 interested as immediate relatives of victims of crimes for wliich the lawfully imposed
15 sentences are not being carried out and as citizens with a public interest in seeing the law
16 enforced.
17
18. Petitioners have exhausted their admuiistrative remedies by petitioning for a
18 regulation as set foith in paragi-aphs 11 and 12.

19
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
20
(Failure to Provide Reasons in Violation of Government Code 11340.7(a))
21
19. Petitioners reallege paragraphs 1 through 14 of this petition as tiiough fiilly set
22 forth herein.
23
20. Respondent had a legal duty under section 11340.7, subdivision (a) of the
24 Govermnent Code to state the reasons for denial of Petitioners' petitions for adoption of
25 regulations tmder the Administrative Procedure Act and the operational needs exception to
26 establish standards for administration of lethal injection. Respondent failed to provide any
27 reason whatever for this aspect of the decision.
28
-4-
21. Petitioners are "interested persons" within the meaning of section 11340.6,
subdivision (a) of the Govemment Code and had a legal right to an explanation of the
reason for the agency's decision.
4
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request relief as follows:
1. That a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing Respondent to

(a) promulgate withm 30 days a temporary regulation for the administration
6
7
of the death penalty by lethal injection complying with tlie requirements established in
Morales v. Hickman (ND Cal. 2006) 415 F.Supp.2d 1037 under the "operational needs"
exception of section 5058.3 of die Penal Code; and
10
(b) commence within 30 days the procedure for promulgating a permanent
11
regiUation for the administration of the death penalty by lethal injection complying with die
12
requirements estabhshed mMorales v. Hickman (ND Cal. 2006) 415 F.Supp.2d 1037,
13
Morales v. CDCR (2008) 168 Cal.App.4di 729, and Sims v. CDCR (2013) 216 Cal.App.4di
14
1059 and complete that procedure before die expiration of the temporary regulation and
15
any extension of it;
16
2. That a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing Respondent to state why die
17
petitions attached as Exliibits A and C to diis complaint were denied regarding
18
promulgation of regulations permanendy through the Administrative Procedure Act
19
process and temporarily dirough the "operational needs" exception of section 5058.3 of the
20
Penal Code.
21
3. That Petitioners be; awarded attorneys' fees;
22
4. That Petitioners be awarded costs of the suit; and
23
5. That Petitioners be granted such other and furtlier relief as die court may deem
24
just and equitable.
25
Dated: November
2014
26
27
28
KENT S. SCI-EEIDE^ ^
Attorney for Petitioners

-5-
VERIFICATION
1
2
I , BRADLEY S. WINCHELL, declare as follows:
I am a Petitioner in this action. I have read the foregoing Petition for Peremptory
4 Writ of Mandate, and know its contents. The same is true of my knowledge, except as to
5 Paragraphs 2 and 11, which pertain to and are verified by the other Petitioner, and except
6 as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I
7 beheve it to be tme.
8
I declare tmder penalty of peijury under the laws of the State of Cahfomia that the
9 foregoing is tme and correct.

10
Executed this 3 day of
2014, at <3'l-2> cJzhs-n
11
12
13
14
BRADLEY S. WINCHELL
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
CaHfomia.
VERIFICATION
I , KERMIT ALEXANDER, declare as follows:
I am a Petitioner in tliis action. I have read the foregoing Petition for Peremptory
Writ of Mandate and know its contents. The same is true of my knowledge, except as to
Paragraphs 1 and 12, which pertain to and are verified by the other Petitioner, and except
as to those matters which are stated on information and behef, and as to those matters I
believe it to be tme.
8
9
10
. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State ofCalifornia that the
foregoing is tme and correct.
Executed this J ^ d a y of y t ^ ^ ^ i ^ N , 2014, at Kvo^g^^<uj2:^
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
Califomia.
i !. 'I ( r ' ' I - /
EXHIBIT A
Criminal Justice L l al Foundation
/ /
Board or Trustees
Chairman Emeritus
Jan J. Erteszek
(1913 - 1986)
Chairman
Rick Richmond
September 16, 2014
Emeritus Trustees
Patrick A. Dohcny
Barron Hilton
James B. Jacobson
Robert S. Wilson
Vice Chairman
Michael H. Homer
President & CEO
Michael Rushford
Secretary-Treasurer
Faye Battiste Otto
Joseph F. Alibrandi
William E. Bloomficld, Jr.
Jerry B. Epstein
Samuel J. Kahn
Gino RonccUi
Mary J. Rudolph
William A. Shaw
Dr. Robert Sinskey
Terence L. Smith
Ted G. Westerman
Hon. Pete Wilson
Legal Advisory Comniittee

Hon. John A. Arguelles
Hon. George Deulcmejian
Hon. Malcolm M. Lucas
Dr. Jeffery Beard, Secretary

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
1515 S Street
Ee: Petition for Regulation on Execution of Capital Ptmishment by
Lethal Injection
Deal- Dr. Beard:
Pursuant to section 11340.6 of the California Government Code, I ,
Kermit Alexander, hereby petition for the adoption of a regulation for the
execution of capital punishment by lethal injection. I am an "interested
person" within the meardng of section 11340.6 i n that I am an immediate
family member of victims murdered by a person whose sentence of death
has been reviewed and affirmed through all of the normal reviews and
whose execution has been delayed for three years with no end i n sight
solely by the failure of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to have a valid execution protocol i n place.
Hon. Edwin Meese, HI

Hon. Edward Panelli
Legal Dircclx)r &
General Counsel
Kent S. Scheidegger
Academic Review Boiird
Prof George L. Kelling
Prof. Steven Levitt
Prof. Joseph M. Bessette
My mother, sister, and nephews were murdered by inmate Tiequon

Cox 30 years ago. See People v. Cox, 53 Cal.3d 618 (1991). Cox was
sentenced to death for these crimes, and all normal reviews of his case
were completed three years ago. As an immediate family member of
deceased victims, I am a victim of this crime within the meaning of the
Victims' Bill of Rights, Article I , Section 28 of the Califomia Constitution,
with a constitutional :right to finality i n the case (subdivision (a)(6)) and a
prompt and final conclusion (subdivision (b)(9)). These rights have been
violated by CDCR's allowing itself to be enjoined from carrying out its
responsibility to execute the sentence i n this case and failing to take the
necessary corrective action.
2131 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 446-0345 Web page: http://www.cjlf.org

September 16, 2014
Page 2
Section 3604, subdivision (a) of the Penal Code provides, "The
punishment of death shall be inflicted by the administration of a lethal gas
or by an intravenous injection of a substance or substances i n a lethal
quantity sufficient to cause death, by standards established under the
direction of the Department of Corrections." This is a legislative
command, not an option. CDCR has a duty to estabhsh the standards.
The prior three-drug protocol is unusable for three reasons. Over
eight years ago, a Federal District Coixrt conditionally denied (and,
therefore, conditionally granted) an injunction against the execution of
Michael Morales unless CDCR either had a qualified anesthesiologist
participate or adopted a barbiturate-only method. See Morales v.
Hickman, 438 F.3d 926, 927 and n. 2 (CA9 2006). CDCR neither complied
w i t h the conditions nor sought appellate review of them. I n the years of
litigation since, the situation remains essentially unchanged. The federal
court would allow Cahfornia executions to proceed i f CDCR adopted a
barbiturate-only method, without the problematic paralytic and potassium
chloride steps, but CDCR has inexplicably failed to do so.
Second, earlier protocols have been enjoined under the Administrative
Procedure Act, and CDCR has not taken any steps i n three years to correct
the situation. The Court of Appeal for the First District held that the 2007
lethal injection protocol was a regulation for the purpose of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and was not exempt under the
"single-prison" exception of Penal Code section 5058, subdivision (c)(1).
See Morales v. CDCR, 168 Cal.App.4th 729, 739-740 (2008). I n a later
case, the same court held that the 2010 protocol was not validly adopted
under the APA. See Sims v. CDCR, 216 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1075 (2013).
Despite the dubious nature of these holdings, CDCR did not seek review in
the California Supreme Court i n either case.
Third, CDCR has failed to establish a new protocol i n all the time since
these decisions. I n its notice of appeal in the second case, CDCR said i t
"will also begin the process of considering alternative regulatory protocols,
including a one-drug protocol, for carrying out the death penalty." I t has
now been two and a half years since that statement. There is no apparent
reason for taking so long. Other states have adopted new protocols and
restarted executions in a fraction of the time. While some of these
protocols have been problematic, the single-drug method with
Dr. Jeffery Beard, SecretarySeptember 16, 2014

Page 3
pentobarbitalthe method used to euthanize animals every dayhas been
used many times without significant difficulties.
On July 31, 2013, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation made a public
records request for the draft protocol. The response of August 9, 2013,
claimed that the protocol was exempt from disclosure, effectively admitting
it exists. That was over a year ago. Evidently, CDCR is simply sitting on
it. This is dereliction of duty. CDCR has an obligation to execute duly
imposed and fiilly re-viewed sentences of death. Incapacitating itself by
failure to adopt a protocol is not an option that the law allows to the
department.
The substance of the regulation requested is a le thal injection protocol
that uses only one or more sedatives and does not use a paralytic agent or
potassium chloride. Pentobarbital is preferred and should be the first
choice, but the protocol should also provide for alternative drugs in the
event that the existing conspiracy in restraint of trade prevents the
department from obtaining pentobarbital.
CDCR's existing stock of sodium thiopental should be one of the
alternatives. Although this stock has reached its nominal expiration date,
that date is only a conservative estimate. Actual purity and potency of a
drug can be readily determined by testing, and such testing addresses any
concerns raised by the expiration date.
The procedure for a permanent regulation should be commenced
within 30 days of this letter. In addition, the same protocol shotdd be
established simultaneously under the "emergency" provisions of the APA.
Under Penal Code section 5058.3, "no sho-wing of emergency is necessary"
for CDCR to invoke this expedited procedure. Only an operational need of
the department is required. CDCR's duty to carry out executions is such a
need beyond serious question.
Section 11340.7, subdivision (b) of the Government Code also provides
that an agency may pro-vide other relief. Two methods suggest themselves.
I n the 2008 decision, the Court of Appeal only held that the particular
protocol before it did not quahfy for the "single prison" exception. It did
not hold that execution protocols generally could not quahfy. CDCR could,
-without significant difficulty, produce an execution protocol covering only
the procedures to be carried out within San Quentin and leaving other

September 16, 2014
Page 4
matters to other policies. Second, section 11340.9, subdi-vision (i) of the
Government Code provides that a regulation for specifically named persons,
is not subject to the APA. Those persons whose sentences have been
reviewed and upheld through direct appeal, state habeas corpus, and
federal habeas corpus are a kno-wn and small set of people. An execution
protocol could be estabhshed for them by name, and these long overdue
executions cotild be carried out promptly. By whatever method, CDCR
needs to enable itself to carry out its legal duties, and it needs to do so
promptly.
I request prompt action on this petition. Correspondence may be
addressed to:
Kent Scheidegger
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
2131 L Street
Sincerely,
EXHIBIT B
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
EDMUND G. BROWN JR, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

Benjamin T. Rice
General Counsel
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001
October 16,2014
Mr. Kermit Alexander

c/o Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director
2131 L Street
Dear Mr. Alexander:

DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REGULATION
PUNISHMENT BY LETHAL INJECTION
ON EXECUTION
OF
CAPITAL
Pursuant to Govemment Code section 11340.7, subdivision (a), this letter acknowledges receipt
of your petition (enclosed), received on September 17, 2014, in which you seek adoption of a
regulation pertaining to lethal injection, pursuant to Govemment Code section 11340.6. In your
petition, you request the Califomia Depiirtment of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) break
up the policies contained in previously disapproved regulations, and move forward with an
execution protocol dealing solely with San Quentin State Prison (SQ) under the "single prison"
exception in Penal Code section 5058, subdivision (c)(1). You also request CDCR move
forward with an execution protocol applying solely to an individual under the "single person"
exception in Govemment Code section 11340.9, subdi-vision (i). CDCR is imable to proceed as
requested and accordingly denies your petition in whole.
As you correctly point out, the court has mled previous execution regulations were not
"single prison" regulations for various reasons. (See Morales v. CDCR (2008) 168 Cal.App.4*
729.) Pursuant to that holding, we do not agree that we could draft an execution protocol
applying only to SQ that would be the method by which CDCR would execute eveiy condemned
inmate in the state, notwithstanding the fact the executions would only take place at SQ. Under
Morales, this makes it a regulation of general statewide application and the single prison
exception would not apply.
You also request CDCR pursue a regulation under the "single person" exception. While that
exception does apply to a single person, it also requires the regulation not apply generally
throughout the state. (See Government Code section 11340.9, subdivision (i).) A regulation
comprising an execution protocol that complies with all the complex legal requirements will not
be amenable to change every time a new execution is scheduled. Such an execution protocol
would not fall under the single person exception, as it must apply to every condemned person
3
Mr. Kermit Alexander
Page 2
statewide. The plain language of the statute Ln which the exception is found bai's any protocol
that has general statewide application.
Pursuant to Govemment Code section 11340.7, subdivision (d), a copy of this denial and your
petition shall be transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, for publication in the
Califomia Regulatory Notice Register, as soon as practicable. Interested persons may obtain a
copy of your petition from CDCR by sending a request to petitionrequestfg),cdcr.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
JUDI LEMOS
Assistant General Counsel
Office of Legal Affairs
Enclosure
EXHIBIT 0
! '
r':'..- I f ^ | ' : . i ' : ' ,

I I ! ' i / I I '
Criminal Justice Lt^'al Foundation
7" / I ^^R9
Board of Trustees
Emeritus-Hustccs
Chairman Emeritus
Jan J. Erteszek
(1913 - 1986)
September 17, 2014
Chairman
Riclc Rjchmond
Patrick A. Doheny
Barron Hilton
James B. Jacobson
Robert S. Wilson
Vice Chairman
Michael H . Horner
President & CEO
Michael Rushford
Secretary-Treasurer
Faye Battiste Otto
Joseph F. Alibrandi
Dr. Jeffrey Beard, Secretary

Califomia Departinent of Corrections and Rehabilitation
1515 S Street
William E. Bloomfield, Jr.

Jerry B. Epstein
Samuel J. Kahn
Re: Petition for Regulation on Execution of Capital Punishment by

Lethal Injection
Gino Roncelli
Mary J. Rudolph
Dear Dr. Beard:
William A. Shaw
Dr. Robert Sinskey
Terence L . Smith
Ted G. Westerman
Hon. Pete Wilson
Legal Advisory Committee

Hon. John A. Arguelies
Hon. George Deukmejian
Hon. Malcolm M . Lucas
Pursuant to section 11340.6 of the Califomia Government Code, I ,

Bradley S. Winchell, hereby petition for the adoption of a regulation for the
execution of capital punishment by lethal injection. I am an "interested
person" within the meaning of section 11340.6 in that I am an immediate
family member of a -victim murdered by a person whose sentence of death
has been re-viewed and affirmed through all of the noi'mal re-views and
whose execution has been delayed for eight years -with no end in sight
solely by the failtire of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to have a valid execution protocol in place.
Hon. Edwin Meese, I I I

Hon. Edward Panelli
Legal Director &

General Counsel
Kent S. Scheidegger
Academic Review Board

Prof. George L. Kelling
Prof. Steven Levitt
Prof. Joseph M . Bessette
My sister was murdered by inmate Michael Morales 33 years ago. See

People V. Morales, 48 Cal.3d 527 (1989). Morales was sentenced to death
for this crimes, and aU normal re-views of his case were completed eight
years ago. As an immediate family member of a deceased victim, I am a
-victim of this crime within the meaning of the Victims' Bill of Rights,
Article I , Section 28 of the California Constitution, -with a constitutional
right to finality in the case (subdi-vision (a)(6)) and a prompt and final
conclusion (subdi-vision (b)(9)). These rights have been -violated by CDCR's
allowing itself to be enjoined from carrying out its responsibihty to execute
the sentence in this case and failing to take the necessary corrective action.
2131 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 446-0345
Web page: http://www.cjlf org

September 17, 2014
Page 2
Section 3604, subdi-vision (a) of the Penal Code pro-vides, "The
punishment of death shall be inflicted by the administration of a lethal gas
or by an intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal
quantity sufficient to cause death, by standards established under the
direction of the Department of Corrections." This is a legislative
command, not an option. CDCR has a duty to establish the standards.
The prior three-drug protocol is unusable for three reasons. Over
eight years ago, a Federal District Court conditionally denied (and,
therefore, conditionally granted) an injunction against the execution of
Michael Morales unless CDCR either had a qualified anesthesiologist
participate or adopted a barbiturate-only method. See Morales v.
Hickman, 438 F.3d 926, 927 and n. 2 (CA9 2006). CDCR neither comphed
with the conditions nor sought appellate review of them. In the years of
litigation since, the situation remains essentially unchanged. The federal
court would allow California executions to proceed if CDCR adopted a
barbiturate-only method, without the problematic paralytic and potassium
chloride steps, but CDCR has inexplicably failed to do so.

Second, earlier protocols have been enjoined under the Administrative
Procedure Act, and CDCR has not taken any steps tn three years to correct
the situation. The Court of Appeal for the Ftrst District held that the 2007
lethal injection protocol was a regulation for the purpose of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and was not exempt under the
"stngle-piison" exception of Penal Code section 5058, subdi-vision (c)(1).
See Morales v. CDCR, 168 Cal.App.4th 729, 739-740 (2008). In a later
case, the same court held that the 2010 protocol was not validly adopted
under the APA. See Sims v. CDCR, 216 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1075 (2013).
Despite the dubious nature of these holdings, CDCR did not seek review tn
the Califomia Supreme Court in either case.
Third, CDCR has failed to estabhsh a new protocol in all the time since
these decisions. In its notice of appeal in the second case, CDCR said it
"will also begin the process of considering alternative regulatory protocols,
including a one-drug protocol, for carrying out the death penalty." I t has
now been two and a half years since that statement. There is no apparent
reason for taking so long. Other states have adopted new protocols and
restarted executions in a fraction of the time. WhUe some of these
protocols have been problematic, the single-drug method with

September 17, 2014
Page 3
pentobarbitalthe method used to euthanize animals every dayhas been
used many times -without significant difficulties.
On July 31, 2013, the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation made a pubhc
records request for the draft protocol. The response of August 9, 2013,
claimed that the protocol was exempt from disclosure, effectively admitting
it exists. That was over a year ago. Evidently, CDCR is simply sitting on
it. This is dereliction of duty. CDCR has an obligation to execute duly
imposed and fully reviewed sentences of death. Incapacitating itself by
failure to adopt a protocol is not an option that the law allows to the
department.
The substance of the regulation requested is a lethal injection protocol
that uses only one orro.oresedatives and does not use a paralytic agent or
potassium chloride. Pentobarbital is preferred and should be the first
choice, but the protocol should also provide for alternative drugs in the
event that the existing conspiracy in restraint of trade prevents the
department from obtaining pentobarbital.
CDCR's existing stock of sodium thiopental should be one of the
alternatives. Although this stock has reached its nominal expiration date,
that date is only a conservative estimate. Actual purity and potency of a
drug can be readily determined by testing, and such testing addresses any
concerns raised by the expiration date.
The procedure for a permanent regulation should be commenced
within 30 days of this letter. In addition, the same protocol should be
established simultaneously imder the "emergency" provisions of the APA.
Under Penal Code section 5058.3, "no showing of emergency is necessary"
for CDCR to invoke this expedited procedure. Only an operational need of
the department is required. CDCR's duty to carry out executions is such a
need beyond serious question.
Section 11340.7, subdi-vision (b) of the Government Code also pro-vides
that an agency may pro-vide other relief Two methods suggest themselves.
In the 2008 decision, the Court of Appeal only held that the particular
protocol before it did not qualify for the "single prison" exception. It did
not hold that execution protocols generally could not qualify. CDCR could,
-without significant difficulty, produce an execution protocol covering only
the procedures to be carried out -within San Quentin and leaving other

September 17, 2014
Page 4
matters to other policies. Second, section 11340.9, subdi-vision (i) of the
Government Code provides that a regulation for specifically named persons
is not subject to the APA. Those persons whose sentences have been
re-viewed and upheld through direct appeal, state habeas corpus, and
federal habeas corpus are a known and small set of people. An execution
protocol could be estabhshed for them by name, and these long overdue
executions could be carried out promptly. By whatever method, CDCR
needs to enable itself to carry out its legal duties, and it needs to do so
promptly.
I request prompt action on this petition. Correspondence may be
addressed to:
Kent Scheidegger
2131 L Street
Sincerely,
Bradley S. WkicheU
' .. I I (:':.! I-
''.Ml!
EXHIBIT D
: ,' i I "
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

Benjamin T. Rice
General Counsel
P.O. Box 942883
October 16,2014
Mr. Bradley S. Winchell

c/o Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director
2131 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95 816
Dear Mr. Winchell:

DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REGULATION
PUNISHMENT BY LETHAL INJECTION
ON
EXECUTION
OF
CAPITAL
Pursuant to Govemment Code section 11340.7, subdivision (a), this letter acknowledges receipt
of your petition (enclosed), dated September 17, 2014, in which you seek adoption of a
regulation pertaining to lethal injection, pursuant to Government Code section 11340.6. In.your
petition, you request the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) break
up the policies contained in previously disapproved reguladons, and move forward -with an
execution protocol dealing solely with San Quentin State Prison (SQ) under the "single prison"
exception in Penal Code section 5058, subdivision (c)(1). You also request CDCR move
forward with an execution protocol applying solely to an individual under the "single person"
exception in Govemment Code section 11340.9, subdivision (i). CDCR is unable to proceed as
requested and accordingly denies your petition in whole.
As you correctly point out, the court has mled previous execution regulations were not
"single prison" regulations for various reasons. (See Morales v. CDCR (2008) 168 Cal.App.4'*'
729.) Pursuant to that holding, we do not agree that we could draft an execution protocol
applying only to SQ that would be the method by which CDCR would execute every condemned
inmate in the state, notwithstanding the fact the executions would only take place at SQ. Under
Morales, this makes it a regulation of general statewide application and the single prison
exception would not apply.
You also request CDCR pursue a regulation under the "single person" exception. While that
exception does apply to a single person, it also requires the regulation not apply generally
throughout the state. (See Government Code section 11340.9, subdivision (i).) A regulation
comprising an execution protocol that complies with all the complex legal requirements will not
be amenable to change every time a new execution is scheduled. Such an execution protocol
would not fall under the single, person exception, as it must apply to every condemned person
Mr. Bradley S. Winchell

Page 2
statewide. The plain language of the statute in which the exception is foimd bars any protocol
that has general statewide application.
Pursuant to Govemment Code section 11340.7, subdivision (d), a copy of this denial and your
petition shall be transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law, for publication in the
Califomia Regulatoiy Notice Register, as soon as practicable. Interested persons may obtain a
copy of your petition firom CDCR by sending a request to petitionrequestfSicdcr.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
; D I LEMOS
Enclosure
)''
' \ ' \ : ,': I
EXHIBIT E
Criminal Justice Lcâl Foundation
iiin,/r^/f9S2
Board of Trustees
Emeritus Trustees
Chairman Emeritus
Jan J. Erteszek
(1913 - 1986)
October 20, 2014
Chairman
Rick Richmond
Patrick A. Doheny
Barron Hilton
James B. Jacobson
Robert S. Wilson
Vice Chairman
Michael H. Homer
President & CEO
Michael Rushford
Secretary-Treasurer
Faye Battiste Otto
Joseph F. Alibrandi
William E. Bloomfield, Jr.
Ms. Judi Lemos

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
P.O. Box 942883
Jerry B. Epstein
Samuel J. Kahn
Dear Ms. Lemos:
Gino Roncelli
Mary J. Rudolph
William A. Shaw
Dr. Robert Sinskey
We have received your letters of October 16, 2014, denying the

petitions siibmitted by Kermit Alexander and Bradley Winchell regarding
regulations for execLition of death sentences by lethal injection.
Terence L. Smith
Ted G Westerman
Hon. Fete Wilson
Legal Advisory Comnn'ttee

Hon. John .A. Axguclles
Hon. George Deukmejian
The letters give reasons why CDCR has chosen not to grant two forais
of alternative relief suggested i n a single paragraph on pages 3 and 4 of the
petitions, but they give no reason whatever for denial of the main request
in the body of the letterestablishing a permanent regi-ilation through the
APA process and a temporary one Lmder the "operational needs"
exception.
Hon. Malcolm M . Lucas

Hon. Edwin Meese, l U
Hon. Edward Panelli
Giving reasons is not optional. CDCR is i n violation of subdivision (a)

of section 11340.7 of the Government Code.
Sincerely,
Legal Director &

General Counsel
Kent S. Scheidegger
Academic Review Board

Prof George L. Kelling
Kent Scheidegger
Attorney for Petitioners
Prof. Steven Levitt

Prof. Joseph M . Bessette
KSS:iha
2131 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 446-0345
Web page: http://vi'ww.cjlf.oig
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY O F SACRAMENTO
720 Ninth Street ~ Room 102
Sacramento, C A 95814-1380
916-874-5522 - Website: www.saccourt.ca.gov
GUIDE TO THE PROCEDURES FOR PROSECUTING PETITIONS

FOR PREROGATIVE WRITS
(as specified in Local Rule 2.26(E))
This guide to tlie procedures for prosecuting petitions for writs of mandate and otiier prerogative writs in the
Sacrannento Superior Court is made available for your general information pursuant to Local Rule 2.26(E).
A protocol for each department to which writs are assigned (hereinafter "assigned writ department")
supplements these procedures with respect to the filing of documents, the scheduling of hearings, and
the use of tentative rulings. The protocol is available from the assigned writ department and on the "Civil"
page of the court's website under Prerogative Writ Departments and Protocol.
Topic
Page
Filing a Writ Petition
Serving a Writ Petition
Filing Subsequent Papers
Noticing Related Writ Cases and Possible Consolidation
Applying for a Temporary Stay in Administrative

Mandate Proceedings (CCP 1094.5 (g) or (h))
Applying for a Temporary Stay in Traditional Mandate

Proceedings (CCP 1085)
Bringing Motions before the Hearing on the Merits

of a Writ Petition
Setting a Hearing on the Merits of a Writ Petition

(1) By noticing a hearing on a writ petition
(2) By securing issuance of an alternative writ
6
7
7
Applying for a Continuance
Dismissing a Writ Petition
Lodging an Administrative Record
The Hearing on the Merits
10
Appearing by Telephone
10
Preparing a Judgment and Peremptory Writ
11
Guide to Procedures For Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs

Revised 1.1.2014
Page 1 of 11
Filing a Writ Petition:

Action
Step
1.
File an original and two copies of the petition and a civil case cover sheet at the
civil front counter in Room 102 on the first floor of the main courthouse.
Or mail an original and two copies of the petition and a civil case cover sheet to the
Civil Division - Room 102, 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
2.
Pay the filing fee pursuant to Government Code section 70611 in Room 102.
3.
Receive from the civil front counter clerk a Notice of Case Assignment and a copy of
this Guide to the Procedures for Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs.
Serving a Writ Petition:

Step
Action
Serve the writ petition on respondent(s) and real party(ies) in compliance with the
requirements of Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sections 1107 and 1088.5. Until
compliance with these statutory service requirements is established by the filing of
an appropriate proof of service, the court cannot hear or act on the petition.
2.
Along with the writ petition, serve copies of the Notice of Case Assignment and this
Guide to the Procedures for Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs.
For service of an application for an alternative writ, see below, "Setting a Hearing on the Merits
of a Writ Petition, (2) Securing issuance of an alternative writ."
Filing Subsequent Papers:
Step
1.
Action
File an original and two copies of all subsequent documents related to the writ
petition either at the civil front counter in Room 102 or by mail addressed to the
Civil Division - Room 102, 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Exception: Documents filed one day before or on the day of the hearing shall be filed
with the courtroom clerk in the assigned writ department after any applicable fees have
been paid in Room 102.
2.
File documents by fax in compliance with rule 2.303 of the California Rules of Court.
Documents faxed directly to the court will not be filed.
3.
Specify on the first page of each document the date, time and department of any
scheduled hearing to which the document applies. To set a hearing, see below,
"Bringing Motions before the Hearing on the Merits of a Writ Petition" and "Setting
a Hearing on the Merits of a Writ Petition."

Revised 1.1.2014
Page 2 of 11
Noticing Related
Writ Cases and
Possible Consolidation:
Step
1.
2.
3.
Action
When filing a Notice of Related Case pursuant to rule 3.300(d) of the California
Rules of Court regarding two or more writ cases assigned to different judges in
this court, file the Notice In each writ case.
When filing a Response to a Notice of Related Case pursuant to rule 3.300(g) of the
California Rules of Court, file the Response in each writ case.
Serve the Notice or Response on each party to each case.
Note that the court proceeds with respect to related writ cases under rule 3.300(h)(1) of the
California Rules of Court (CRC) as follows: .
The judges assigned to civil writ cases listed in a Notice Of Related Case filed and served
pursuant to CRC 3.300(d) identify which one of them is assigned to the eariiest filed case,
information which should be included in the Notice of Related Case pursuant to CRC 3.300(c)(2).
That judge proceeds under CRC 3.300(h)(1)(A) to determine whether the cases are related
within the meaning of CRC 3.300(a).
If the judge assigned to the eariiest filed case determines that the cases are related, the judge
orders the cases related and assigned to his or her department. That order is filed in each of
the related cases and served on the parties to each of the related cases pursuant to
CRC 3.300(1). In addition, an Amended Notice of Case Assignment, reassigning to the judge
each of the related cases not previously assigned to him or her,, is filed and served upon all
parties to each reassigned case. Courtesy copies of the order and Amended Notice(s) of Case
Assignment are sent to the judges previously assigned to any of the related cases.
If the judge assigned to the eariiest filed case determines that the cases are not related within
the meaning of CRC 3.300(a), the judge issues a minute order stating and briefly explaining the
determination. This minute order is filed in each of the cases listed in the Notice of Related Case
and is served on all parties to the listed cases pursuant to CRC 3.300(1).
In response to an order determining that the cases are not related, any party to any of the
cases listed in the Notice of Related Case may file a motion pursuant to CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D) to
have the cases related. The motion must be filed with the Presiding judge or a judge designated
by the Presiding Judge.
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 3 of 11
3
Applying for a
Temporary Stay in
Administrative Mandate
Proceedings (CCP 1094.5 (g) or (h)):
Step
1.
Action
Prepare an ex parte application for an order temporarily staying operation of the
administrative decision under review in the proceeding. Identify whether the
temporary stay order is requested pursuant to subdivision (g) or (h) of the CCP
1094.5. Specify "Ex Parte" in the title of the application.
Pursuantto rules 3.1201 and 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court and this Guide
to the Procedures for Prosecuting Petitions for Prerogative Writs, an ex parte
application for a stay order includes the following supporting documents and papers:
Endorsed copy of the petition.
"Points and authorities, declarations and other supporting documents, including
relevant portions of the administrative record if available.
" Proposed order to show cause why the administrative decision under review in the
proceeding should not be temporarily stayed pending a hearing on the merits of
the writ petition (OSC). This proposed OSC should contain:
- blank spaces for the date and time of the hearing on the OSC,
- an order for sen/ice of the OSC and any supporting papers not previously served
with a blank space for a date of service prior to the hearing on the OSC, and
- an order staying the administrative decision pending the hearing on the OSC.
Proposed stay order.
Notice of hearing on the petition with blank spaces for date and time (unless
the stay is being requested in conjunction with an application for an alternative
writ).
Declaration regarding notice, as specified in rule 3.1204.
In addition, CCP 1094.5 (g)and (h) require that proof of service of a copy of the
application on the respondent accompany an application for a stay. See
subdivisions (g) and (h) for required manner of service.
Contact the assigned writ department to resen/e an ex parte hearing date and time
and to determine whether the assigned writ department requires any of the documents
or papers listed above in Step 1 to be filed before the hearing. Note that some writ
departments hear writ matters only on Fridays.
Notify respondent(s) and real party(ies) of the hearing on the ex parte stay application
in accordance with rule 3.1203 of the Califomia Rules of Court. Include the details of
this notification in the declaration regarding notice prepared pursuant to rule 3.1204.
Note: The court prefers at least 48 hours' notice but, upon a showing of urgency,
will accept less notice.
If the assigned writ department does not require any of the documents listed above in
Step 1 to be filed before the ex parte hearing, file and serve the documents and
papers as soon as possible and no later than the time of the hearing. (See rule 3.1206
of the California Rules of Court).

Revised 1.1.2014
Page 4 of 11
At the ex parte hearing, depending on the nature of the factual and legal Issues
raised by the stay application and the practical exigencies of the matter, the court
will either rule on the stay application immediately or issue the proposed OSC with or without a
temporary stay order pending the hearing on the OSC at a specified date and time.
If the court grants a stay at the ex parte hearing or the hearing on the OSC, the court will sign
and file the proposed stay order and set a date and time for a hearing on the merits of the
petition. The court clerk will record the hearing date and time in the notice of hearing on the
petition, or if the court has ordered the issuance of an alternative writ, in the alternative writ.
If the court denies a stay at the ex parte hearing or the hearing on the OSC, the court, upon
petitioner's request, will set a date and time for a hearing on the merits of the petition. The clerk
will record the hearing date and time in the notice of hearing on the petition, or if the court has
ordered the issuance of an alternative writ, in the alternative writ.
Applying for a
Temporary Stay
in Traditional Mandate
Proceedings (CCP 1085):
Step
Action
Follow the statutory and regulatory provisions for obtaining a temporary restraining
order (TRO), an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued
(OSC), and/or a preliminary injunction, set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure
(including but not limited to CCP 525, 526, 527. 528 and 529) and rule 3.1150 of the
California Rules of Court. These provisions constitute rules of practice for temporary
stays in mandate proceedings brought under CCP 1085 in the absence of temporary
stay provisions specific to such mandate proceedings. (See CCP 1109.)
When following the statutory and regulatory procedures for obtaining a TRO and/or an
OSC, comply with the ex parte procedures outlined above in "Applying for a Temporary
Stay in Administrative Mandate Proceedings" and in rule 3.1201 et seq. of the
California Rules of Court.
3.
If no TRO or OSC is sought, notice a motion for a preliminary injunction following the
procedures set forth below in "Bringing Motions Before the Hearing on the Merits"
Note that a temporary stay in proceedings on a petition for a writ of prohibition may be
obtained by following the procedures set forth below under "Setting a Hearing on the Merits of a
Petition, (2) Securing issuance of altemative writ." An alternative writ of prohibition, unlike an
alternative writ of mandate, stays specified action by the respondent until further order of the
court. (See CCP 1087, 1104.)
Bringing Motions before
The Hearing on the
Merits of a Writ Petition:
Motions on the pleadings and other pretrial matters brought in civil actions including
motions for change of venue, demurrers, motions to strike, motions to dismiss, discovery
motions, and motions for summary judgment - may generally be brought in writ
proceedings. (See CCP 1109.)
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 5 of 11
Motions addressing the merits of the petition in whole or in part should be calendared for
a hearing at the same time as the hearing, on the merits. Motions directed at resolving
issues preliminary to and distinct from the issues related to the merits of the petition, such
as untimeliness of the petition under an applicable statute of limitations, should be
calendared before the hearing on the merits of a writ petition. The court, in the exercise
of its discretion to control the order of litigation before it, may advance the hearing on a
motion to a date before the hearing on the merits or may postpone a motion to the hearing
on the merits when such advancement or postponement will promote the efficient conduct
and disposition of the proceeding.
Because a writ petition is usually disposed of by a hearing on the merits which is limited to oral
argument on written briefs and documentary evidence, the usefulness of a motion for
summary judgment or summary adjudication in economically disposing of an unmeritorious
case or claim is substantially reduced in writ proceedings. Thus, before bringing a motion for
summary judgment or summary adjudication, counsel should carefully evaluate whether the
purpose of the motion can be achieved more directly and completely through a hearing
on the merits of the petition.
Step
Action
Contact the assigned writ department to reserve a date and time available on the
department's calendar for a hearing on the motion. Prior to reserving a date, contact
the other parties to the writ petition and determine their availability on the date. Some
assigned writ departments hear writ matters only on Fridays.
2.
Notice the motion in accordance with the civil law and motion procedures in
CCP 1005 and in compliance with the California Rules of Court, including rules
3.1110 through 3.1113, 3.1115, 3.1116, 3.1300, and 3.1320 through 3.1324.
Comply with the page limits for memoranda set forth in rule 3.1113.
If the assigned writ department uses the tentative ruling system, the notice of motion
must contain tentative ruling language available from the department.
Setting a Hearing
on the Merits of a
Writ Petition:
If a hearing on the merits of a writ petition has not been set in conjunction with an ex parte
hearing on an application for a temporary stay, it may be set either by
(1) noticing a hearing on the petition or (2) securing issuance of an altemative writ.
Note: The court prefers, as more efficient and economical for both itself and the parties,
the procedure of noticing a hearing on the petition.
The date set for a hearing on the merits of a writ petition, whether by notice or alternative writ,
should allow the parties to file briefs in accordance with the following schedule established
in Local Rule 2.26(D):
Opening brief:
Due 45 days before the hearing
Opposition brief:
Reply brief:

Revised 1.1.2014
Page 6 of 11
Note that Local Rule 2.26(D) limits the length of opening and opposition briefs to 30 pages and
reply briefs to 20 pages instead of the page limits in rule 3.1113 of the California Rules of Court.
The date of the hearing on the merits may be expedited and the briefing schedule
shortened upon an application setting forth circumstances warranting an expedited
hearing. The application for an expedited hearing may be made orally at a hearing for a
temporary stay or alternative writ or on an ex parte basis in accordance with rule 3.1201 through
3.1206 of the California Rules of Court.
(1) Noticing a hearing on a writ petition
Step
1.
2.
Action
Contact the assigned writ department to reserve an available date and time for a
hearing on the writ petition. Prior to reserving a date, contact the other parties to
the writ petition and determine their availability on the date. Writ petitions are normally
heard on Fridays.
Prepare and llle a notice of hearing on the writ petition specifying the reserved hearing
date and time. If the assigned writ department uses the tentative ruling system, the
notice of hearing must contain tentative ruling language available from the department.
3.
File the notice of hearing either at the civil front counter in Room 102 or by mail
addressed to the Civil Division - Room 102, 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
4.
Serve a copy of the notice of hearing on respondent(s) and real party(ies) no later than
the time allowed for filing and serving the opening brief. If not previously served, the
writ petition, the Notice of Assignment, and this Guide should also be served no later
than the time for filing and serving the opening brief
(2) Securing Issuance of an alternative writ

The alternative writ is an order to show cause that calendars a writ petition for a hearing
on the merits. With the exception of an alternative writ of prohibition issued pursuant to
CCP 1104, the alternative writ does not, in and of itself, accomplish a stay or afford any
affirmative relief
Note that, with the altemative writ method, two writs may be issued in the proceeding.
First, the altemative writ is issued to set a hearing on the merits of the petition. Second, a
peremptory writ may issue after the hearing on the merits.
Step
1.
Action
Prepare an ex parte application for an alternative writ. Specify "Ex Parte" in the title
of the application.
As provided in rules 3.1201 and 3.1202 of the California Rules of Court and this
guide, an ex parte application for an alternative writ includes the following supporting
documents and papers:
Endorsed copy of the petition.
Points and authorities and any other supporting documents.
Proposed order directing issuance of alternative writ.
Proposed altemative writ with blank spaces for the date and time of a hearing
on the petition. (Include a signature block for the clerk, not the judge.)
Declaration regarding notice, as specified in rule 3.1204.

Revised 1.1.2014
Page 7 of 11
2.
Contact the assigned writ department to reserve an available date and time for an
ex parte hearing on the application for an alternative writ and to determine whether the
department requires the papers listed above in Step 1 to be filed before the hearing.
Note that some writ departments hear writ matters only on Fridays. Also note that,
absent a showing of good cause or waiver by the respondent(s) and real party(ies),
some departments will not issue an alternative writ unless the writ petition and
application for the alternative writ have been served on respondent(s) and real
party(ies) at least five days before the ex parte hearing. (See CCP 1088, requiring
service of copy of petition in conjunction with application for alternative writ;
CCP 1107, providing a five-day period for respondent(s) and real party(ies) to
respond to a writ petition after receiving service of the petition.)
Notify the respondent(s) and real party(ies) of the date and time of the ex parte hearing
on the alternative writ pursuant to rule 3.1203 of the California Rules of Court. Include
the details of this notification in the declaration regarding notice pursuant to rule 3.1204
Note: The court prefers at least 48 hours' notice but, upon a showing of urgency, will
accept less notice.
If the assigned writ department does not require any of the documents listed above in
Step 1 to be filed before the hearing, file and serve on all parties the documents and
papers as soon as possible and no later than the time of the hearing.
If the court grants the application for an altemative writ, the court signs and files the
proposed order directing issuance of the alternative writ that sets the petition for a hearing
on the merits. The clerk then issues the proposed alternative writ with the date and time
of the hearing and provides it to the petitioner after the petitioner has paid the issuance
fee in Room 102. The writ must be served upon respondent(s) and real party(ies) in the
same manner as a summons in a civil action unless the court expressly orders othenwise.
(See CCP 1073, 1096.) Once served, the writ must be filed with a proof of service.
Applying for a
Continuance:
After a hearing has been set on a motion or on the merits of a petition, it may be
continued only upon approval of the court. If the continuance requires a change in the
briefing schedule, such change must also be approved.
Step
Action
Present a telephone request for a continuance of the hearing to the clerk in the assigned
writ department, including the reason(s) for the continuance and any necessary changes
in the briefing schedule. Present the request as far in advance of the scheduled hearing
date as possible.
Upon the court's approval, the clerk will provide available dates on the court's calendar
to which the hearing may be continued.

Revised 1.1.2014
Page 8 of 11
2.
Promptly confer with all counsel to agree upon a mutually convenient hearing date
from among the dates provided by the clerk and any necessary changes in the briefing
schedule.
If counsel cannot agree to a continuance, a new hearing date and/or changes in the
briefing schedule, the party seeking the continuance may apply for a continuance by
noticed motion.
Promptly present to the court a stipulation signed by all parties, including the reason
for the continuance, the agreed upon hearing date and any agreed upon changes in the
briefing schedule, with a proposed order.
Pay the filing fee for the stipulation and order pursuant to subdivision (c) of
Government Code section 70617 in Room 102.
When the stipulation and order has been signed and filed by the court, serve the
stipulation and order on all parties.
Note that these procedures do not apply when a motion is dropped from the calendar
by the moving party. In such circumstances, the moving party must telephonically notify
the court and all other parties as far as possible in advance of the date on which the
motion is to be heard and send a confirming letter to the court with copies to the other
parties.
Dismissing a
Writ Petition:
Step
Action
1.
Promptly notify the assigned writ department pursuant to rule 3.1385 of the Califomia
Rules of Court when a writ proceeding is settled or otherwise disposed of
2.
File a dismissal of the writ proceeding in the assigned writ department within 45 days
after the date of the settlement pursuant to rule 3.1385(b) or after the date specified in
the notice of conditional settlement pursuant to rule 3.1385(c).
Lodging an
Administrative Record:
Step
Action
When securing a date and time for a hearing on the merits of the petition, inform the
clerk in the assigned writ department about the size of the administrative record in the
case. Determine the department's preferences regarding the format, binding and
container for the administrative record.

Revised 1.1.2014
Page 9 of 11
Lodge the administrative record with the assigned writ department no later than 25
days prior to the hearing on the merits of a writ petition. If the record is not lodged by
this time, some assigned writ departments may take the matter off calendar.
Consult with the assigned writ department if you wish to lodge the administrative
record more than 25 days before the hearing on the merits of a writ petition.
Attach a cover sheet to the administrative record and any boxes containing the record
that lists the:
Case name,
Case number,
Date and time of the hearing.
At the hearing on the merits of the petition, the court will mark the administrative record
as an exhibit and admit it into evidence. At the conclusion of the proceedings on the
petition, the court may return the administrative record to the party who lodged it or
destroy it pursuant to CCP 1952 through 1952.3 and subdivision (i) of CCP 1094.5.
The Hearing on the Merits:
All hearings on writ petitions proceed by way of oral argument. If a party wishes to
present oral testimony at the hearing, the party must obtain permission pursuant to rule
3.1306 of the Califomia Rules of Court.
If the assigned writ department uses a tentative ruling system and posts a tentative ruling
on the court day before the hearing on the writ petition, a party desiring to be heard must
contact the clerk and request oral argument by the time designated in the posted tentative
ruling. When requesting oral argument, the party must advise the clerk that all other
parties have been notified.
Appearing by
Telephone:
Parties may appear by telephone in accordance with Local Rule 2.04.
Note that some assigned writ departments permit telephonic appearances in hearings on
motions only on a limited basis and in hearings on the merits of a writ petition only under
compelling circumstances.
Revised 1.1.2014
Page 10 of 11
Preparing a
Judgment and
Peremptory Writ:
If the court denies the writ petition, the party designated by the court shall, pursuant to
rule 3.1312 of the California Rules of Court, prepare, serve on all parties, and present to the
court a judgment denying the petition.
If the court grants the writ petition:
Step
Action
1.
The party designated by the court prepares (1) a judgment granting the writ petition
and (2) a peremptory writ. The peremptory writ includes a signature block for the
clerk, not the judge.
2.
Pursuant to rule 3.1312 of the California Rules of Court, prepare, serve on all parties,
and present to the court a judgment granting the petition and the peremptory writ. The
judgment, when approved, will be signed by the court. The clerk will issue the
peremptory writ and provide it to the petitioner for service upon respondent(s) and real
party(ies) after the petitioner pays the issuance fee fn Room 102.
3.
Serve a copy of both the judgment granting the writ petition and the peremptory writ
on the respondent(s) and real party(ies). The writ must be served in the same manner
as summons in a civil action. (CCP 1073, 1096,1107.)
4.
Return the original peremptory writ with a proof of service to the assigned writ
department for filing.
5.
Prepare, serve, and file in the assigned writ department a notice of entry ofjudgment
pursuant to CCP 664.5(a).

Revised 1.1.2014
Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
II
12
13
BRADLEY WINCHELL and
34-2014-80001968
14
KERMIT ALEXANDER,
IPROPOSEDl JUDGMENT PURSUANT

TO STIPULATION
Petitioners,
15
V.
16
17
JEFFREY A. BEARD,
18
Respondent.
19
20
21
Petitioners, Bradley Winchell and Kermit Alexander, and respondent Jeffrey A. Beard,
22
acting as Secretary of the Califomia Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), have
23
filed with the Court a written Stipulation for Entry of .ludgment. Because there is good cause to
24
approve the Stipulation and enter Judgment,
25
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment be entered as follows:
26
I.
No later than 120 days afler the United States Supreme Court issues its opinion or
27
other disposition in Glossip v. Gro.ss, No. 14-7955, CDCR shall commence promulgation of
28
proposed regulatoiy standards regarding executions carried out by lethal injection by submitting a
Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation (34-2014-80001968)
notice of proposed rulemaking, initial statement of reasons, and the text of the proposed
2
regulations to the Office of Administrative Law, as described by Government Code sections
11346.2 and 11346.5;
2.
Should circumstances arise that materially impede CDCR's ability to promulgate
regulations within the specified time frame, the parties shall meet and confer and may agree to
extend their agreement by an additional 30 days or more, but no extension will be made without
Petitioners' consent;
8
9
10
3.
CDCR shall pay Petitioners' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of
$ 10,000 within 60 days of the Court entering this Judgment, or as soon thereafter as possible if
payment is delayed by events not attributable to Respondent or CDCR, such as the lack of a State
budget or the processing of the payment at the State Controller's Office, and
12
13
4.
This Court shall retain jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 to
enforce this Judgment until respondent's performance of the terms is completed.
14
15
16
Dated:
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Judgment Pursuant to Stipulation (34-2014-80001968)
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL

Case Name:
No.:
Winchell v. Beard
34-2014-80001968
I declare:
1 am employed in the Office of the Attomey General, which is the office of a member of the
Califomia State Bar, at which member's direction this ser\'ice is made. I am ] 8 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the
Attomey General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, con-espondence placed in the internal
mail colleclion system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States
Postal Service witli postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
On June 1. 2015,1 served the attached:
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO STIPULATION
by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in the internal mail collection
systern at the Office of the Attorney General at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000, San
Francisco, CA 94102-7004, addressed as follows:
Kent Scheidegger
2131 L Street
Sacraniento, CA 95816
Atlorney for Petitioners Bradley Winchell
and Kermit Alexander
1 declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
m.d correct and that this declaration was executed on June 1, 2015, at San Francisco. Califomia.
L. Santos
Declarant
SR0H410297
2074IW2.doc
Sienature

2015 Jun-I Pri 3:21: B-Mail: Thomas - Patterson@Doj - Ca.Gov Attorneys For Respondent Jeffrey A. Beard

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2015 Jun-I Pri 3:21: B-Mail: Thomas - Patterson@Doj - Ca.Gov Attorneys For Respondent Jeffrey A. Beard

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

\ - V-' ;-.

Attomey &^e)S^fiali?om?a ^'^

2015 JUn-I PrI 3:21

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF

referred to here as the Parties.

including retention of jurisdiction to enforce paragraphs 1 through 3 of the stipulation below

rulemaking process in good faith.

The Parties stipulate as follows:

mandate directing CDCR to promulgate a temporary lethal-injection regulation within 30 days

February 11, 2015.

regulations to the Office of Administrative Law, as described by Government Code sections

11346.2 and 11346.5;

no extension will be made without the Petitioners' con.senl;

jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of paragraphs I through 3 of this stipulation pursuant to

Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

3604(a), which are the subject of the Petition.

of the other Parly.

AUTHORITY TO ENTER STIPULATION

SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

REPRESENTATIONS AND WARR/VNTIES

Execution in counterpart. This Stipulation may be executed simultaneously in one or more

one and the same instrument.

intent and purpose of this Stipulation.

implied, between the Parties, except as set forth in this Stipulation.

No oral modifications or waiver. No supplement, modification, or amendment lo this

construed and enforced accordingly.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

JEFFREY BEARD, Ph.D.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

24 .riunaw BE^Rcr pfi:D.

Attomey General of Califomia

Criminal Justice LegaflF^ndation

Service of Process Disclaimer:

Summons and Complainl/Cross Complainl/Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS STAFF USE ONI^Y

KENT S. SCHEIDEGGER (SBN 105178)

Superior Court Of Californiaj

Attomey for Petitioners

BRADLEY S. WINCHELL and

JEFFREY A. BEARD, Secretary,

Petitioners petition this Court for a writ of mandate directed to Respondent

JEFFREY A. BEARD, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and by this petition allege:

1. Petitioner BRADLEY S. WINCHELL is a citizen of Califomia and a California

2. Petitioner KERMIT ALEXANDER is a citizen of California atid a California

3. Respondent JEFFREY A. BE^ARD is the Secretary of tlie California Department

4. CDCR is responsible for estabhshing standards for the execution of sentences of

Califomia conditionally denied Michael Morales's motion for a preliminary injunction

barbiturate-only method in lieu of the three-drug method prescribed by the existing

7. On April 16, 2009, CDCR published a notice promulgating another tliree-drug

10. On information and belief. Respondent CDCR has already drafted a

11. On September 16, 2014, Petitioner KERMIT ALEXANDER petitioned CDCR

12. On September 17, 2014, Petitioner BRADLEY S. WINCI-IELL petitioned

14. As immediate relatives of victims murdered by murderers whose execution is

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Establish Standards Under Penal Code 3604(a))

18. Petitioners have exhausted their admuiistrative remedies by petitioning for a

18 regulation as set foith in paragi-aphs 11 and 12.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Failure to Provide Reasons in Violation of Government Code 11340.7(a))