HAWKINS v. PRUDDEN, 4:13-CV-2325 JAR. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20140424a74
Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on its review of the record. On April 17, 2014, Petitioner's reply was filed in this case. (ECF No. 12). From the Court's review, the reply appears to address Respondent's Response to Order to Show Cause Why a Writ of Habeas Corpus Should Not Be Granted (ECF No. 11), and also adds some new claims to the original habeas petition. Rather than filing this as an amended habeas petition, this document has been docke
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on its review of the record. On April 17, 2014, Petitioner's reply was filed in this case. (ECF No. 12). From the Court's review, the reply appears to address Respondent's Response to Order to Show Cause Why a Writ of Habeas Corpus Should Not Be Granted (ECF No. 11), and also adds some new claims to the original habeas petition. Rather than filing this as an amended habeas petition, this document has been docket..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on its review of the record. On April 17, 2014, Petitioner's reply was filed in this case. (ECF No. 12). From the Court's review, the reply appears to address Respondent's Response to Order to Show Cause Why a Writ of Habeas Corpus Should Not Be Granted (ECF No. 11), and also adds some new claims to the original habeas petition. Rather than filing this as an amended habeas petition, this document has been docketed as a reply because it responds to several of Respondent's arguments. However, the Court will allow Respondent 30 days to file a surreply addressing the new arguments in the reply and supplementing his response to any other issues.
In addition, the Court notes that Petitioner's original habeas petition is unclear regarding whether it addresses the August 22, 2008 conviction or the April 30, 2010 probation revocation. (ECF No. 1 at 1). Respondent's surreply should address the legal arguments as to both dates.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent should file a surreply in this case no later than May 27, 2014, as outlined above.
Source: Leagle
