Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilcken v. Haynes, C18-0279-RSL-MAT. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20181024g85 Visitors: 17
Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD MARY ALICE THEILER , Magistrate Judge . This is a federal habeas action brought under 28 U.S.C. 2254. On July 11, 2018, this Court issued an Order directing respondent to file a reply brief addressing petitioner's claim of actual innocence which was set forth in petitioner's response to respondent's answer to petitioner's federal habeas petition. ( See Dkt. 19.) Included in that Order was a directive that respondent submit with his reply br
More

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD

This is a federal habeas action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 11, 2018, this Court issued an Order directing respondent to file a reply brief addressing petitioner's claim of actual innocence which was set forth in petitioner's response to respondent's answer to petitioner's federal habeas petition. (See Dkt. 19.) Included in that Order was a directive that respondent submit with his reply brief a copy of the transcript of petitioner's trial to assist the Court in evaluating petitioner's claim of actual innocence, or explain why production of the transcript was unnecessary. (See id. at 2, ¶ 2.) Respondent filed his reply brief on August 8, 2018, but failed to submit with his brief a copy of the transcript or to explain why production of the transcript was unnecessary. (See Dkt. 20.) It appears from a review of respondent's reply brief that a copy of the transcript will, in fact, be necessary in order for the Court to properly evaluate petitioner's claim of actual innocence. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

(1) Respondent shall submit a copy of the transcript of petitioner's trial not later than November 2, 2018. Respondent's answer to petitioner's federal habeas petition (Dkt. 13) is RENOTED on the Court's calendar for consideration on that date.

(2) Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a reply to respondent's brief regarding actual innocence (Dkt. 21) is STRICKEN. The Court did not invite petitioner to file a reply to respondent's brief and, thus, there was no pending deadline to extend. The Court will nonetheless accept petitioner's brief for filing, and will consider it when evaluating his claim of actual innocence. However, no further briefing will be accepted.

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent, and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik.

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