v. Harris

Filing 42

ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge William Alsup on August 20, 2014. (whalc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 For the Northern District of California United States District Court FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 MICHAEL RAY HARRIS, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Petitioner, No. C 11-80261 WHA v. RANDY TEWS, ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Respondent. / In petitioner’s fourth habeas claim, he contends the following: 23 Petitioner is entitled to correction of inaccuracies, outdated, and irrelevant information contained in his Presentence Report. In this case, Petitioner is in the position of being designated, having his release date determined, and having his right to retroactive designation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3621(b) determined by the Bureau of Prisons, based on information contained in a PSR which was prepared some twenty-one and a half years ago. 24 (Habeas 10). Petitioner requests that the Court use its equitable powers to update information in 25 the presentence investigative report that is no longer accurate (Traverse 8). 21 22 26 By WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27 AT NOON, each party should submit a declaration, five 27 pages maximum, describing the proper procedure, if any, for inmates to supply the Bureau of 28 Prisons with additional information, subsequent to their sentencing, that may affect their release date. Specifically, the Court is interested in whether such information is amended to the 1 presentencing investigative report or whether the Bureau of Prisons considers other records 2 outside the report. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: August 20, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?