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)
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?