Schultz

(HC) (DP) Osband v. Schultz

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 23, 20252:97-cv-00152California478 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE IAN OSBAND, No. 2:97-cv-0152 KJM CSK 12 Petitioner, 13 v. DEATH PENALTY CASE 14 JASON SCHULTZ, ACTING WARDEN, ORDER 15 Respondent.1 16 17 On April 22, 2025, a remote status conference was held before this Court regarding 18 petitioner’s seventeenth and unopposed motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file 19 objections to the findings and recommendations filed September 8, 2023. (ECF Nos. 707, 757.) 20 Assistant Federal Defender Brian Abbington and attorney Tim Brosnan appeared on behalf of 21 petitioner. Deputy Attorney General Erin Doering appeared on behalf of respondent. At the time 22 petitioner filed the pending motion, petitioner did not anticipate filing further requests for 23 extensions of time to file objections. (See ECF No. 757.) For the reasons stated at the remote 24 hearing, including Mr. Brosnan’s recent computer hacking experience that occurred after the 25

1 The pending motion for extension of time indicates that Jason…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.