Howard v. Harris, 1:12-cv-01875-JLT (PC). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180620917
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST OF ATTORNEY CAREY TO CONTINUE THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Doc. 81) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . The Court has received a letter from Patrick Carey, the attorney who represents Mr. Howard on appeal. (Doc. 81) Mr. Carey reports that he has written to Mr. Howard and provided an expanded "engagement agreement" but has not received it back from Mr. Howard and has not met with him. In fact, it is not clear whether Mr. Carey has had even telephone contact such that
Summary: ORDER DENYING REQUEST OF ATTORNEY CAREY TO CONTINUE THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Doc. 81) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . The Court has received a letter from Patrick Carey, the attorney who represents Mr. Howard on appeal. (Doc. 81) Mr. Carey reports that he has written to Mr. Howard and provided an expanded "engagement agreement" but has not received it back from Mr. Howard and has not met with him. In fact, it is not clear whether Mr. Carey has had even telephone contact such that t..
More
ORDER DENYING REQUEST OF ATTORNEY CAREY TO CONTINUE THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING (Doc. 81)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.
The Court has received a letter from Patrick Carey, the attorney who represents Mr. Howard on appeal. (Doc. 81) Mr. Carey reports that he has written to Mr. Howard and provided an expanded "engagement agreement" but has not received it back from Mr. Howard and has not met with him. In fact, it is not clear whether Mr. Carey has had even telephone contact such that the Court can be confident that Mr. Howard wishes representation at the hearing or concurs in continuing it. Therefore, the Court ORDERS:
1. The request by Mr. Carey to continue the evidentiary hearing is DENIED. Nevertheless, Mr. Carey is encouraged to attend the hearing and to meet with Mr. Howard in advance of the hearing whether at the courthouse or beforehand1, to determine whether Mr. Howard wishes representation. However, based upon the limited remand, as noted by Mr. Carey, the Court will accept no briefs and will not consider argument of counsel or Mr. Howard on the remanded topic. Thus, the Court cannot fathom that preparation of Mr. Howard or, for that matter preparation of counsel, is required. In any event, the Court will consider any motion made by either side at the time of the hearing or otherwise;
2. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this order to Mr. Carey via email.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Seemingly, a telephone meeting would be the most expedient.
Source: Leagle
