Uppal v. Kelly et al
Filing
13
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD BY 6/26/17; clerk directed to renote respondents' motion to dismiss for 6/26/17 by Hon. James P. Donohue. (RS)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
DALJINDER SINGH UPPAL,
Petitioner,
9
10
11
Case No. C17-306-TSZ-JPD
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS
TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
v.
JOHN KELLY, et al.,
Respondent.
12
13
14
This is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas action. The record indicates that
15
petitioner was scheduled for immigration hearings on April 6, 2017, and April 19, 2017, see Dkt.
16
8 at 6, but the Court does not have information regarding the outcomes of those hearings. So that
17
the Court’s resolution of petitioner’s habeas petition is based on a full and complete record, the
18
Court ORDERS:
19
(1)
By June 26, 2017, respondents shall supplement the record with any immigration
20
court orders regarding the April 2017 hearings and any other relevant immigration proceedings
21
that have occurred since then.
22
23
(2)
Before supplementing the record, respondents shall meet and confer with
plaintiff’s counsel regarding the supplemental records. Respondents shall notify the Court
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD - 1
1
whether plaintiff has any objection to the supplemental records. Respondents shall not include
2
any argument with the supplemental records, however, they may request leave to file a
3
supplemental brief.
4
(3)
The Clerk is directed to RE-NOTE respondents’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 8, for
5
June 26, 2017, and to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable Thomas S.
6
Zilly.
7
Dated this 13th day of June, 2017.
8
A
9
JAMES P. DONOHUE
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD - 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?