ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

Movant is a federal prisoner proceeding through counsel with an amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On February 19, 2013, respondent filed an opposition to movant's amended § 2255 motion. On April 20, 2013, after an extension of time, movant filed a thirty-four page traverse. On April 22, 2013, movant filed a ten page addendum to his traverse. On April 24, 2013, respondent filed a motion to amend his opposition and an amended opposition.

On June 3, 2013, movant filed a forty-six page amended traverse. Also on June 3, 2013, movant filed a motion for leave to file additional briefing in support of his amended traverse. Therein, movant's counsel requested permission to submit additional briefing with respect to the following: (1) the recent decision of the Supreme Court in McQuiggin v. Perkins, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013) as it relates to movant's claim of actual innocence; (2) the issue of whether the decisions in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) apply to movant's third ground for relief; and (3) whether the decision in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) "should be considered in Ground 3." (ECF #320 at 5.)

In response to movant's June 3, 2013 motion for additional briefing, on June 17, 2013, this court granted movant's motion but placed limits on the length of the further briefing submitted by the parties. That order also advised the parties that no further briefing would be allowed in this matter. Movant filed his supplemental brief on July 1, 2013, respondent filed his responsive brief on July 15, 2013, and movant filed a reply on July 22, 2013.

Despite the court's recent advisement that no further briefing would be permitted, on August 22, 2013, movant filed a document styled "Motion to Reopen and Amend 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion." Therein, movant's counsel requests leave to file additional briefing addressing the recent Supreme Court decisions in Alleyne v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013) and Descamps v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013), and "to expand upon the issues related to Ground 4, Resentencing." (ECF No. 326 at 1.) In the motion movant's counsel states that these two decisions "might be relevant and provide the legal authority for this court to grant [movant] some relief." (Id.)1

The court concludes that movant has failed to demonstrate good cause for an order for further briefing in this action. The court will consider the Alleyne and Descamps decisions when issuing its findings and recommendations on movant's § 2255 motion. However, no further briefing in this action will be permitted.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: