Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

USA v. Shields, 12-cr-00410-BLF-1. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180118763 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANT SHIELDS' LETTER FILED JANUARY 5, 2018 AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [RE: ECF 484] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . On December 28, 2017, the Court granted the Government's administrative motion to extend its deadline to respond to Defendant Melvin Shields' motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. See Order Granting United States' Motion for Administrative Relief, ECF 483. The Court extended the Government's
More

ORDER CONSTRUING DEFENDANT SHIELDS' LETTER FILED JANUARY 5, 2018 AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[RE: ECF 484]

On December 28, 2017, the Court granted the Government's administrative motion to extend its deadline to respond to Defendant Melvin Shields' motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Order Granting United States' Motion for Administrative Relief, ECF 483. The Court extended the Government's response deadline from December 29, 2017 to February 28, 2018. See id.

On January 5, 2018, Mr. Shields filed a letter opposing the Government's administrative motion. See Letter, ECF 484. The letter, which is 2 pages in length, challenges certain statements made in the Government's administrative motion; requests that the Court grant his § 2255 motion immediately; argues that the Government should be granted no extension or, at most, a short extension; and requests bail in the event that the Government's motion for an extension is granted. See id.

The Court construes Mr. Shields' letter as a motion for reconsideration of its order granting the Government's administrative motion. While the Court acknowledges Mr. Shields' frustration at the delay in the briefing of his § 2255 motion, Mr. Shields chose to assert claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and the Government must obtain trial counsel's records in order to evaluate and respond to those claims. The Government's explanation of the delay in obtaining trial counsel's records is reasonable, as are the efforts the Government has made to date to obtain those records. Accordingly, Mr. Shields' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Mr. Shields' renewed request for bail is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Court's prior order denying bail. See Order Denying Defendant's Emergency Motion for Immediate Release, ECF 467.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer