From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BRODHEIM v. VEAL

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2011
No. CIV S-06-2326 LKK GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2011)

Opinion

No. CIV S-06-2326 LKK GGH P.

May 27, 2011


ORDER


The mandate from the Ninth Circuit having issued on May 24, 2011, petitioner and respondent are now ORDERED to file a joint status report within twenty-one days detailing what claims remain to be decided after remand, and what process is necessary to decide them. If the parties cannot agree, the respective disagreements shall be set forth separately in the joint statement. If a party, or the parties, believe that this case can proceed on the same issues present in the Gilman class action referenced in the undersigned's findings and recommendations, the belief that this habeas case can proceed with the same issues being adjudicated in the Gilman case shall be supported by legal authority.


Summaries of

BRODHEIM v. VEAL

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 27, 2011
No. CIV S-06-2326 LKK GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2011)
Case details for

BRODHEIM v. VEAL

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. BRODHEIM, Petitioner, v. M. VEAL, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 27, 2011

Citations

No. CIV S-06-2326 LKK GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 27, 2011)