Filed: Jun. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER DALE A DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Before the court are movant's motion and corrected motion for a stay of the court's order of June 4, 2012 (Doc. No. 294) denying movant's fourth request for an extension of time to file and serve either a motion for leave to amend the 2255 motion, a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed amended 2255 motion, or a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed. Therein, movant's counsel seeks a stay of the June 24, 2012 order s
Summary: ORDER DALE A DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Before the court are movant's motion and corrected motion for a stay of the court's order of June 4, 2012 (Doc. No. 294) denying movant's fourth request for an extension of time to file and serve either a motion for leave to amend the 2255 motion, a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed amended 2255 motion, or a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed. Therein, movant's counsel seeks a stay of the June 24, 2012 order so..
More
ORDER
DALE A DROZD, Magistrate Judge.
Before the court are movant's motion and corrected motion for a stay of the court's order of June 4, 2012 (Doc. No. 294) denying movant's fourth request for an extension of time to file and serve either a motion for leave to amend the § 2255 motion, a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed amended § 2255 motion, or a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed. Therein, movant's counsel seeks a stay of the June 24, 2012 order so that he can seek reconsideration thereof from the District Judge assigned to this action.
The undersigned has fully described counsel's practice of moving for extensions of time on the date he was due to file either a motion to amend or a statement that movant would proceed on his original § 2255 motion. The court has also noted that counsel has pursued this course of conduct despite explicit warnings from the court that no further extensions of time would be granted. Finally, the court has observed that this § 2255 motion has been pending before the court for almost a year and involves an indictment brought in 1998. See Doc. Nos. 273, 280, 288, 290 & 294.
It is certainly plausible to interpret counsel's current motion for a stay in order to seek reconsideration of the latest order denying his last- minute extension of time, as yet another form of the same strategy — the securing of a de facto extension of time to amend or proceed despite being told that no further extensions of time would be granted for that purpose. Nonetheless, because the denial of the motion for a stay would no doubt merely result in a motion for a stay directed to the assigned District Judge, the undersigned will grant the motion.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Movant's June 6, 2012 motion and corrected motion (Doc. Nos. 296 & 297) to stay the court's June 4, 2012 order are granted.
2. Because movant's counsel acknowledges that any motion for reconsideration must be filed by June 18, 2012, on or before June 19, 2012, or within seven days of any denial of a motion for reconsideration filed by movant, whichever occurs later, movant shall file and serve either a proper motion for leave to amend the § 2255 motion or a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed.
3. No further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose and failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.
