Filed: Feb. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING DAVID W. CHRISTEL , Magistrate Judge . The District Court has referred this 28 U.S.C. 2254 action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Neil Grenning filed his federal habeas Petition seeking relief from a state court conviction. See Dkt. 8. In his Petition, Petitioner raises nine grounds for relief. Id. Respondent James Key filed an Answer arguing, in part, that Ground 5 of the Petition was unexhausted and procedurally barred.
Summary: ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING DAVID W. CHRISTEL , Magistrate Judge . The District Court has referred this 28 U.S.C. 2254 action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Neil Grenning filed his federal habeas Petition seeking relief from a state court conviction. See Dkt. 8. In his Petition, Petitioner raises nine grounds for relief. Id. Respondent James Key filed an Answer arguing, in part, that Ground 5 of the Petition was unexhausted and procedurally barred. ..
More
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
DAVID W. CHRISTEL, Magistrate Judge.
The District Court has referred this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Neil Grenning filed his federal habeas Petition seeking relief from a state court conviction. See Dkt. 8. In his Petition, Petitioner raises nine grounds for relief. Id. Respondent James Key filed an Answer arguing, in part, that Ground 5 of the Petition was unexhausted and procedurally barred. Dkt. 16. Respondent did not provide additional arguments regarding Ground 5 in the Answer. See id. Petitioner filed a Traverse asserting he exhausted Ground 5 and also arguing the state court's adjudication of Ground 5 was contrary to clearly established federal law. See Dkt. 24. Respondent filed a Reply reasserting that Ground 5 is unexhausted, but also contending that Ground 5 is without merit and should be dismissed. Dkt. 26.
The Court has reviewed the relevant record and finds the record indicates Petitioner exhausted Ground 5 in his first state personal restraint petition. See Dkt. 17, Exhibit 54, pp. 5-6, Exhibit 60, pp. 1, 10-12. As Petitioner has likely exhausted Ground 5, the Court will also review Ground 5 on the merits.
In the Reply, Respondent provided some argument that Ground 5 should be dismissed because it lacks merit. Dkt. 26. However, it is not clear if Respondent fully briefed Ground 5 on the merits. See id. Further, as Respondent raised this argument for the first time in his Reply, Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to respond to Respondent's arguments regarding whether Ground 5 should be dismissed on the merits.1
To ensure the parties are provided with an adequate opportunity to brief Ground 5 on the merits, the Court orders the following:
• Respondent is directed to file, on or before March 1, 2018, a supplemental answer addressing Ground 5 on the merits. If Respondent wishes to rely on the briefing provided in the Reply, he may file notice with the Court stating as such.
• Petitioner may file a supplemental traverse (response to the supplemental answer) addressing only the new arguments raised by Respondent related to Ground 5 on or before March 29, 2018.
• Respondent may file a reply to the supplemental traverse on or before April 6, 2018. The Clerk of Court is directed to re-note the Petition for consideration for April 6, 2018.
