7/30/2019 28Jltr
1/2
STEVEN T. WAX Federal Public Defender
STEPHEN R. SADY
Chief Deputy Defender
Steven Jacobson
Bryan E. Lessley
Nancy Bergeson
Christopher J. Schatz
Ellen C. Pitcher
Craig Weinerman
Mark Bennett Weintraub
Gerald M. Needham
Thomas J. Hester
Ruben L. Iiguez
Anthony D. Bornstein
Lisa Hay
Tonia L. Moro +
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERDISTRICT OF OREGON
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland OR 97204
503-326-2123 / Fax 503-326-5524
Branch Offices:
151 W. 7th, Suite 510 15 Newtown StreetEugene, OR 97401 Medford,
OR 97501
541-465-6937 541-776-3630
Fax 541-465-6975 Fax 541-776-3624
Susan Russell
Patrick Ehlers
Francesca Freccero
C. Rene Manes
Amy Baggio
Nell Brown
Kristina Hellman
Harold DuCloux III
Alison M. Clark
Brian Butler+
Thomas E. PriceLynn Deffebach i
Michelle Sweet i
Eugene Office
+ Medford Office
i Research/Writing Attorney
October 1, 2009
Molly Dwyer, Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit
P.O. Box 193939San Francisco, CA 94119-3939
Re: Lee v. Lampert
No. 09-35276
Dear Ms. Dwyer:
Pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure, we supplement page 60
of the Response Brief of the petitioner-appellee with the
following citation: See also Day v.
McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 209 (2006) (it would make scant sense
to distinguish in this regard
AEDPAs time bar from other threshold constraints on federal
habeas petitioners, such asexhaustion, procedural default, and
non-retroactivity). InDay, the Supreme Court held that district
courts are permitted, but not obliged, to considersua sponte the
timeliness of a state prisoners
habeas petition. The citation supports the reasoning in ONeal v.
Lampert, 199 F. Supp. 2d 1064
(D.Or. 2002), quoted at page 60, upon which the Magistrate Judge
and the District Court relied in
the present case. ER 5, 24. Just as it would make scant sense to
distinguish procedural obstacles
in the context of the rules at issue inDay, there is no
legitimate rationale for treating the time bar
differently from the procedural default at issue in Schlup v.
Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
This matter is set for oral argument on October 5, 2009, on the
Portland calendar. Please
bring this supplemental citation to the Panels attention.
Yours truly,
/s/ Stephen R. Sady
Stephen R. Sady
Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender
SRS/jcdO:\Client\Sady\Habeas\Lee Richard R
PD200900589SRS\pleadings\28J.ltr.wpd
