Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00132/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00132-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hollister George
Petitioner
W.J. Sullivan
Respondent

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOLLISTER GEORGE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

W.J. SULLIVAN, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:08-CV-132 AWI MJS (HC)

ORDER ON PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE AND ORDER VACATING

THE DECEMBER 9, 2010 HEARING DATE

Currently set for hearing and decision on December 6, 2010, is Respondent’s Motion for

Stay. The Court has previously denied a stay in this case, a decision which the Ninth Circuit

affirmed. See Court’s Docket Doc. Nos. 29, 33. Respondent’s pending motion is based on the

intervening Ninth Circuit authority of Haggard v. Curry, — F.3d — , 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21017

(9th Cir. October 12, 2010), which indicated that the remedy for a petitioner who has been denied a

parole date by the Board of Parole Hearings is a new hearing/parole suitability decision. 

On November 29, 2010, Petitioner requested that the Court move the hearing to January 24,

2011. Petitioner’s request is timely. See Local Rule 230(f). Petitioner indicated that the additional

time is needed due to the holidays, counsel’s schedule, and his need to obtain declarations from

individuals who are involved in supervising his release. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 61. 

Respondent opposes the motion and primarily argues that the declarations have little to no

relevance for determining whether to grant or deny the stay request. See id. at Doc. No. 62. 

Respondent also emphasizes Haggard and that the motion is time sensitive because of Petitioner’s

status as a convicted murderer and the need to appeal a possible denial of the stay motion by this

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 1

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 63 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 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

Court. See id.

 After considering the request and opposition of the parties, the Court will move the hearing

on this matter. As the briefing now stands, there is no opposition. Petitioner’s request for a

continuance is timely, and the nature of the pending motion is such that the Court prefers to issue its

ruling after receiving full briefing. However, the Court agrees with Respondent that a seven week

continuance is excessive and not warranted. Respondent’s motion has been pending since October

29, 2010. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for continuance of the December 6, 2010, hearing date is GRANTED;

2. The December 6, 2010, hearing on Respondent’s motion for a stay is VACATED;

3. Hearing on Respondent’s motion for a stay is RESET to December 20, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.;

4. Petitioner shall file either an opposition or notice of non-opposition on or by December 8,

2010; and

5. Respondent shall file a reply on or by 4:00 p.m. on December 14, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 30, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

U.S. District Court

E. D. California 2

Case 1:08-cv-00132-AWI-MJS Document 63 Filed 12/01/10 Page 2 of 2