avoid prosecution on the Texas charge. When in August 2001, approximately one month before the scheduled forfeiture trial, the district court was apprised of Ms. Collazos’s indictment on the federal charge in Florida, its stay of the forfeiture trial was not, as Ms. Collazos suggests, a maneuver to ensure that she qualified for disentitlement. To the contrary, by waiting until October 2002, more than a year after Ms. Collazos learned of the Florida charges, before ordering disentitlement, the district court plainly afforded her every reasonable opportunity to submit to United States jurisdiction in the related criminal case and to avoid disentitlement pursuant to § 2466. See Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Inc., 156 F.3d 810, 316-17 (2d Cir.1998) (and cases cited therein) (<HOLDING>). In sum, we conclude that the district court’s
holding that a clerks scheduling duties as part of a courts inherent power to control its docket is subject to absolute immunity recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket holding it is critical to the trial courts power of control over its own docket and its ability to serve effectively all litigants that it maintain control over progress of cases before it including requests for extensions of time recognizing the governments broad discretion to conduct criminal prosecutions including its power to select the charges to be brought in a particular case recognizing broad district court discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its docket