Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04176/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04176-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Michael Boudreaux
Petitioner
Michael Hennessey
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY MICHAEL BOUDREAUX,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL HENNESSEY,

Respondent.

NO. C05-4176 TEH 

ORDER RE: BRIEFING ON

STATUS OF CASE

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ joint status statement filed on November 21,

2005, in which the parties agree that Petitioner Ray Michael Boudreaux was released from

custody on October 31, 2005. Now that Petitioner is no longer in custody, Respondent now

contends that this action should be dismissed. Petitioner, however, asks that the Court hold

his habeas petition in abeyance until the grand jury investigation that resulted in Petitioner’s

incarceration is complete. Because no date for completion of the grand jury investigation has

been determined, Petitioner essentially asks that this Court hold his habeas petition in

abeyance indefinitely.

Petitioner contends that his position is supported by the Court’s statement that

“Boudreaux has failed to persuade the Court that this is the case; he has not, for example,

convinced the Court that the alleged violation of his constitutional rights cannot be redressed

after he is released from custody.” Oct. 19, 2005 Order Denying Pet’r’s Request for Stay. 

That statement, however, does not mean that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is

necessarily the proper vehicle to address Petitioner’s claims.

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner shall file a brief, of no more than five pages, on or before Wednesday,

December 7, 2005. Petitioner’s brief shall address, with citations to relevant legal authority,
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

why this petition should be held in abeyance rather than dismissed following Petitioner’s

release from custody.

2. Respondent shall file an opposition brief, also of no more than five pages, on or

before Monday, December 19, 2005.

3. Petitioner shall file a reply brief, of no more than three pages, on or before

Wednesday, January 4, 2006.

4. The matter will then be deemed submitted unless the Court subsequently schedules

oral argument.

Dated: 11/22/05 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT