Filed: Jun. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, District Judge. On June 1, 2012, the undersigned denied movant's fourth request for an extension of time to either file and serve a motion for leave to amend the 2255 motion, a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed amended 2255 motion, or to file a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed. (Doc. No. 294.) In that order, the court noted: [M]ovant's counsel states that he needs additional time to now bring a discovery motion, to obtain
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, District Judge. On June 1, 2012, the undersigned denied movant's fourth request for an extension of time to either file and serve a motion for leave to amend the 2255 motion, a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed amended 2255 motion, or to file a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed. (Doc. No. 294.) In that order, the court noted: [M]ovant's counsel states that he needs additional time to now bring a discovery motion, to obtain i..
More
ORDER
DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.
On June 1, 2012, the undersigned denied movant's fourth request for an extension of time to either file and serve a motion for leave to amend the § 2255 motion, a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed amended § 2255 motion, or to file a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed. (Doc. No. 294.) In that order, the court noted:
[M]ovant's counsel states that he needs additional time to now bring a discovery motion, to obtain images from a bank camera at the scene of the ancient robberies and other materials for review by his expert and to speak to his client who has recently been transferred to a new institution of confinement.
None of the reasons provided by movant's counsel provide good cause for the requested continuance. The indictment in the underlying criminal case was filed in 1998. The § 2255 motion was filed on June 30, 2011, and has now been pending before this court for almost a year. Movant's counsel has never during that time moved for discovery and has certainly never made any focused and narrowly tailored discovery request. After obtaining numerous extensions of time to either file a motion for leave to amend or state an intention to proceed on the original § 2255 motion, on the deadline for that filing, movant's counsel has instead elected to file a request to file a discovery motion. In essence, despite the court making clear that no further extensions would be granted for this purpose, movant's counsel has ignored the court-imposed deadline.
(Doc. No. 294 at 3.)
On the same day the court's order was issued, movant filed motions for discovery and to submit exhibits B & C under seal. In these motions counsel for movant essentially repeats in more detail the claim set out in his motion for an extension time which was denied by the court — that he requires additional and extensive discovery materials before determining whether to seek leave to file an amended § 2255 motion. As indicated in the court's June 1, 2012 order, movant's § 2255 motion was filed on June 30, 2011, and has now been pending before this court for almost a year. Movant's counsel has sought and obtained three extensions of time in which to file his motion to amend or elect to proceed on the original motion. On the date which that election was finally to be made, he has sought yet another extension of time, despite repeated warning that no such request would be granted, and then followed with a motion for extensive discovery. The time for any such discovery motion has long-since passed.
Accordingly, movant's most recent motions will be denied. As indicated in the court's June 1, 2012 order, the motions will be denied. On or before June 11, 2012, movant shall 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. 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.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Movant's June 1, 2012 motion for discovery (Doc. No. 292) is denied;
2. Movant's June 1, 2012 motion to seal exhibits B and C (Doc. No. 293) is denied; and
3. Any hearings noticed by movant before the undersigned with respect to these motions are vacated.
