Schuster v. Espinoza, 1:12-cv-01482-AWI-SAB-HC. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190711832
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jul. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER VACATING JULY 11, 2019 HEARING STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . In light of counsel for Respondent's response addressing the failure to lodge a complete recording of Petitioner's pretrial interview, the Court shall vacate the hearing set for July 11, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Due to the impact of habeas cases on the Court's docket and the Court's desire to have cases decided in an expedient manner, the Court wishes to avoid expending judicial resources and, as federal courts are courts
Summary: ORDER VACATING JULY 11, 2019 HEARING STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . In light of counsel for Respondent's response addressing the failure to lodge a complete recording of Petitioner's pretrial interview, the Court shall vacate the hearing set for July 11, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. Due to the impact of habeas cases on the Court's docket and the Court's desire to have cases decided in an expedient manner, the Court wishes to avoid expending judicial resources and, as federal courts are courts ..
More
ORDER VACATING JULY 11, 2019 HEARING
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
In light of counsel for Respondent's response addressing the failure to lodge a complete recording of Petitioner's pretrial interview, the Court shall vacate the hearing set for July 11, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.
Due to the impact of habeas cases on the Court's docket and the Court's desire to have cases decided in an expedient manner, the Court wishes to avoid expending judicial resources and, as federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, refuses to exercise housekeeping jurisdiction. The Court admonishes that all counsel in any case proceeding in this Court, not support personnel, are expected to take the necessary steps to ensure that their submissions to the Court are accurate and to advise the Court in a timely manner of any issues that would prevent them from complying with court orders. If the representation as now set forth by the Respondent about the video recording is not fact accurate, then the Court will revisit this issue. For now the Court accepts the representation and the hearing is HEREBY VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
