OLLES v. T.C. OUTLAW, 2:11-CV-00109 JTK. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120508551
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 07, 2012
Latest Update: May 07, 2012
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING PENDING MOTIONS JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge. BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 35) and the Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. No. 36) filed on February 3, 2012, by Petitioner Bobby Olles. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 37). Petitioner contends that he was incorrectly denied federal custody credit for 483 days that he spent in state custody because he was erroneously being held by the state.
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING PENDING MOTIONS JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge. BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 35) and the Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. No. 36) filed on February 3, 2012, by Petitioner Bobby Olles. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 37). Petitioner contends that he was incorrectly denied federal custody credit for 483 days that he spent in state custody because he was erroneously being held by the state. G..
More
ORDER DISMISSING PENDING MOTIONS
JEROME T. KEARNEY, Magistrate Judge.
BEFORE THE COURT is the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. No. 35) and the Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. No. 36) filed on February 3, 2012, by Petitioner Bobby Olles. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 37).
Petitioner contends that he was incorrectly denied federal custody credit for 483 days that he spent in state custody because he was erroneously being held by the state. Given the mathematical nature of this case, it appears that the petition can be decided on the record, and no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED. Should the determination be made at a later date that an evidentiary hearing is warranted, the Court will do so.
Petitioner was released on March 6, 2012, and it is unclear what purpose a stay would serve. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion to Stay Proceedings is also DENIED because it is now moot.
Source: Leagle
