Stamps v. Grounds

Filing 33

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REOPEN. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 KEITH STAMPS, Case No. 12-cv-05753-BLF Plaintiff, 9 v. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REOPEN 10 11 RANDY GROUNDS, United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant. 12 13 14 On June 2, 2016, this Court issued an indicative ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 15 Procedure 62.1(a)(3) that it would likely grant Petitioner’s motion to reopen based on not having 16 received the December 29, 2015 Order to Show Cause were the above-captioned case to be 17 remanded for that purpose. See Order on Remand (“First Order on Remand”), ECF 30. On June 18 24, 2016, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to this Court for the limited purpose of ruling 19 on Petitioner’s motion to reopen proceedings. See ECF 32. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court therefore ORDERS Defendant to respond to Petitioner’s motion to reopen, see ECF 26, by no later than July 12, 2016. Defendant shall serve Petitioner by mail addressed to: Keith Stamps AB1095 Salinas Valley State Prison P.O. Box 1050 B5-135 Soledad, CA 93960 Petitioner’s reply, which he may choose to file on his own behalf or through Donald Thomas Bergerson, who has not withdrawn as counsel, is due by no later than July 29, 2016. The matter shall be submitted without oral argument. 1 The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 5 6 Dated: June 28, 2016 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 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?