Brodheim v Welch, et al

Filing 90

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/7/14 ORDERING that within 21 days of this order, the parties shall address why defendants should not be collaterally estopped from acting contrary to the Gilman decision, why an appropriate remedy in this case should not be a new parole hearing, and the practical effect of the Gilman decision on the Brodheim habeas case, No. 2:06- 2326. Both parties shall file a response that is fifteen pages or less in length.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MICHAEL BRODHEIM,

11
12
13

No. 2:05-cv-1512 LKK GGH P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JENNIFER SHAFFER, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

On February 28, 2014, the district court issued an order in Gilman v. Brown, No. 2:05-cv-

17

0830 LKK CKD, which may have conclusively determined parole issues pertinent to this case.

18

(Id., ECF No. 532.)

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: within twenty-one (21) days of this order,

20

the parties shall address why defendants should not be collaterally estopped from acting contrary

21

to the Gilman decision, why an appropriate remedy in this case should not be a new parole

22

hearing, and the practical effect of the Gilman decision on the Brodheim habeas case, No. 2:06-

23

2326. Both parties shall file a response that is fifteen pages or less in length.

24

Dated: March 7, 2014
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

25

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

GGH:076/Brod1512.osc