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)
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Petitioner is entitled to correction of inaccuracies, outdated, and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?