Brodheim v. Cry

Full title: MICHAEL J. BRODHEIM, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL CRY, et al. Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California, Sacramento Division

Date published: Apr 1, 2011

2:02-cv-0573 FCD KJN (PC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011)

Opinion

MICHAEL J. BRODHEIM, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL CRY, et al. Defendants. No. 2:02-cv-0573 FCD KJN (PC) United States District Court, E.D. California, Sacramento Division. April 1, 2011

          STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants stipulate to a continuance of the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint currently scheduled for April 7, 2011, until May 19, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition and Defendants have not filed their reply. Thus, further briefing is anticipated.

         The continuance is requested due to Plaintiff's recent grant of a parole date by the California Board of Prison Terms. However, after the parole hearing was held, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Swarthout v. Cooke, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 859 (2011), making it unclear whether the grant of parole is still in effect. Additional time is necessary to determine whether the District Court can, or will, order Plaintiff's release. Should Plaintiff be released on parole, the parties agree that this matter may become moot, and no further briefing will likely be necessary. Accordingly, the parties request a continuance of the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss until May 19, 2011.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.