Filed: Jul. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Troy Anthony Morrow's pro se 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is before the Court on motions by both parties. First, Morrow filed a motion for a copy of Respondents' answer. (ECF No. 35.) The certificate of service for the answer reflects that Respondents served Morrow by mail within three calendar days of June 27, 2019. (ECF No. 34 at 21.) Morrow's motion stating that he had not received the answer is dated July 8, 2019. (ECF N
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Troy Anthony Morrow's pro se 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is before the Court on motions by both parties. First, Morrow filed a motion for a copy of Respondents' answer. (ECF No. 35.) The certificate of service for the answer reflects that Respondents served Morrow by mail within three calendar days of June 27, 2019. (ECF No. 34 at 21.) Morrow's motion stating that he had not received the answer is dated July 8, 2019. (ECF No..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Troy Anthony Morrow's pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is before the Court on motions by both parties.
First, Morrow filed a motion for a copy of Respondents' answer. (ECF No. 35.) The certificate of service for the answer reflects that Respondents served Morrow by mail within three calendar days of June 27, 2019. (ECF No. 34 at 21.) Morrow's motion stating that he had not received the answer is dated July 8, 2019. (ECF No. 35 at 2.) It is likely that Morrow did not allow sufficient time for the answer to reach him before filing his motion, and it is likely that he has since received the mailed copy. Thus, the motion is denied without prejudice. If Morrow has not been served with the answer by July 22, he should renew his motion.
Both parties also filed motions for extension of time. The Court finds good cause exists to grant these motions.
It is therefore ordered that Respondents' three motions for extension of time to file an answer to the petition (ECF Nos. 31, 32, 33) are all granted nunc pro tunc.
It is further ordered that Petitioner's motion for copy of answer (ECF No. 35) is denied without prejudice as set forth in this order.
It is further ordered that Petitioner's motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of his petition (ECF No. 36) is granted. Petitioner must file and serve his reply on or before September 3, 2019.
