Carr, Jr. v. Cate

Filing 25

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 7/28/2011 re 24 Stipulation and Proposed Order ORDERING Case STAYED until 10/21/2011, current pleading schedule is VACATED; On 10/21/2011, parties shall file status reports regarding the outcome of the 9/21/2011 hearing and the need, if any, for further pleadings or briefs. (Waggoner, D)

Download PDF
1 DANIEL J. BRODERICK, #89424 Federal Defender 2 3 4 5 CAROLYN M. WIGGIN, Bar #182732 Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 498-5700 6 7 Attorney for Petitioner CHARLES H. CARR, JR. 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 CHARLES H. CARR, JR., 15 16 17 Petitioner, v. MATTHEW CATE, Warden, 18 19 Respondent. ____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 2:10-cv-01778-MCE-JFM STIPULATION AND ORDER STAYING CASE UNTIL OCTOBER 21, 2011 Judge: Hon. John F. Moulds 20 Petitioner, CHARLES H. CARR, JR., by and through counsel, Assistant Federal Defender Carolyn 21 M. Wiggin, and Respondent, Warden MATTHEW CATE, by and through counsel, Deputy Attorney 22 General Pamela B. Hooley, hereby stipulate to and jointly request a stay of the proceedings in this matter 23 until October 21, 2011. 24 This request is made because Mr. Carr is currently on parole pursuant to this Court’s order in 25 related case nos. 2:04-cv-00584-MCE-JFM, 2:05-cv-01870-MCE-JFM, and 2:05-cv-01871-MCE-JFM. 26 On June 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgments in those three cases and remanded the cases to 27 28 Stipulation and Order 00280861.wpd 1 1 this Court for further proceedings. See Carr v. Sisto, No. 09-15615, Carr v. Woodford, No. 09-15616, 2 and Carr v. Horel, No. No. 09-15617. Rather than immediately seek Mr. Carr’s return to state prison, the 3 California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) has agreed to give Mr. Carr a “Not in Custody,” or “NIC” 4 hearing on September 21, 2011. At that hearing BPH officials will decide whether or not they are willing 5 to allow Mr. Carr to remain on parole for the remainder of his parole term. If the BPH decides that Mr. 6 Carr can remain on parole for the remainder of his parole term, after which he will be discharged from 7 parole if he successfully serves his parole term, then this case and the related district court cases will 8 become moot. 9 In order to conserve judicial resources, the parties ask that the Court stay this case until the parties 10 know the outcome of the September 21, 2011 hearing. The parties further ask that the current pleading 11 schedule be vacated. The parties ask that this case be stayed until October 21, 2011, on which date the 12 parties will file status reports regarding the outcome of the September 21, 2011, hearing, and the need, if 13 any, for any further pleadings or briefs. 14 15 Respectfully submitted, 16 DANIEL BRODERICK Federal Defender 17 18 Dated: July 22, 2011 19 20 /s/ Carolyn M. Wiggin CAROLYN M. WIGGIN Assistant Federal Defender Attorneys for Petitioner CHARLES H. CARR 21 22 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of the State of California 23 24 Dated: July 22, 2011 25 /s/ Pamela B. Hooley PAMELA B. HOOLEY Deputy Attorney General 26 Attorneys for Respondents 27 28 Stipulation and Order 00280861.wpd 2 1 ORDER 2 Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that 3 this matter is stayed until October 21, 2011, and the current pleading schedule is VACATED. On October 4 21, 2011, the parties shall file status reports regarding the outcome of the September 21, 2011, hearing, 5 and the need, if any, for any further pleadings or briefs. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: July 28, 2011. 9 10 11 12 carr1778.sty 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stipulation and Order 00280861.wpd 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?