Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01710-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MICHAEL B. BIGELOW

Attorney at Law SBN 65211

331 J Street, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 443-0217

LawOffice.mbigelow@gmail.com

Attorney for Arquimedes Mendoza

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARQUIMEDES MENDOZA, ) No. CIV 09-01710 MCE DAD

)

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION AND 

) ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF

v. ) EVIDENTIARY HEARING

)

MATHEW CATE, )

)

Defendant. )

) 

The parties in the above captioned case have met and 

conferred and have agreed to continue the evidentiary hearing in 

the matter, presently scheduled June 8, 2015, and jointly request 

this Court grant their request. 

April 31, 2015, the reply brief in United States v Broadnax

was filed in the Ninth Circuit, and on April 14, 2015, undersigned 

participated in oral in the matter of Seeboth v Mayberg in that 

same Court. Both cases required considerable work and preparation 

prior to those dates. Then, on April 22, 2015 the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeal short set oral argument in the matter of Holmes v 

Johnson, USCA 14-15530 for June 11, 2015. In fact, appellant’s 

Case 2:09-cv-01710-MCE-DB Document 87 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 3
-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reply brief had not been filed and will not be filed until the end 

of this week. 

Respondent’s counsel has faced similar scheduling and work 

conflicts. This past week the California Supreme Court scheduled 

argument in Los Angeles on June 2, 2015. He will, in his words, 

“be wrapped up in preparing for that for the remainder of the 

month.”

In addition, the parties agree that a joint interview of the 

trial judge should be accomplished, if possible. Moreover, 

respondent has agreed to facilitate an interview with the 

prosecutor in this matter. Neither interview has occurred because 

of scheduling problems. For these reasons the parties request a 

continuance of the evidentiary hearing.

Both counsel are available August 17, 2015 and August 23, 

2015 for the evidentiary hearing. Should the Court wish another 

date, the parties shall of course accommodate the Court’s 

schedule. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully requested by both parties 

that the evidentiary hearing date be moved to either August 17, 

2015, August 23, 2015, or a date more convenient to the Court.

Dated: May 12, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael Bigelow__________

MICHAEL BIGELOW

Attorney for Petitioner

Case 2:09-cv-01710-MCE-DB Document 87 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 3
-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS SO STIPULATED

/S/Michael B. Bigelow Dated: May 12, 2015

MICHAEL B. BIGELOW

Attorney for Petition

/s/ Kevin Quade Dated: May 12, 2015

KEVIN QUADE

Attorney for Respondent

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, pursuant to the stipulation of the 

parties, the evidentiary hearing in the above-captioned matter is 

continued to August 17, 2015

Dated: May 15, 2015

DAD:8

Mendoza1710.cont

Case 2:09-cv-01710-MCE-DB Document 87 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 3