Drane v. Brown

E.D. Michigan

Drane v. Brown

DecidedDecember 29, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-10114

StatusUnknown

This text of Drane v. Brown (Drane v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Drane v. Brown, (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JAMES DRANE, Petitioner, Civil No. 2:20-CV-10114 HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MIKE BROWN, Respondent, ___________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER Before the Court is Respondent’s motion for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The motion is GRANTED. A federal court has discretion in extending the time for a state to file a response to a habeas corpus petition. See Whitfield v. Martin, 157 F. Supp. 2d 758, 761 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases gives a

federal court discretion to take into account various factors such as the respondent’s workload and availability of transcripts before determining the time when an answer must be made. See Kramer v. Jenkins, 108 F.R.D. 429, 432 (N.D.

Ill. 1985). This Court finds that ninety days is a reasonable time in which to request a response in this case, taking into account the complexity of the petition, 1 the ability of the respondent to acquire the relevant documentary evidence, and the current caseload of the Attorney General’s Office. See Hudson v. Helman, 948 F.

Supp. 810, 811 (C.D. Ill. 1996). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for An Extension of Time (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. Respondent shall have ninety (90) days

from the date of this order to file an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the Rule 5 materials. s/Denise Page Hood United States District Judge DATED: December 29, 2022

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JAMES DRANE, Petitioner, Civil No. 2:20-CV-10114 HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MIKE BROWN, Respondent, ___________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER Before the Court is Respondent’s motion for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading to the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The motion is GRANTED. A federal court has discretion in extending the time for a state to file a response to a habeas corpus petition. See Whitfield v. Martin, 157 F. Supp. 2d 758, 761 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases gives a

federal court discretion to take into account various factors such as the respondent’s workload and availability of transcripts before determining the time when an answer must be made. See Kramer v. Jenkins, 108 F.R.D. 429, 432 (N.D.

Ill. 1985). This Court finds that ninety days is a reasonable time in which to request a response in this case, taking into account the complexity of the petition, 1 the ability of the respondent to acquire the relevant documentary evidence, and the current caseload of the Attorney General’s Office. See Hudson v. Helman, 948 F.

Supp. 810, 811 (C.D. Ill. 1996). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for An Extension of Time (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED. Respondent shall have ninety (90) days

from the date of this order to file an answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus and the Rule 5 materials. s/Denise Page Hood United States District Judge DATED: December 29, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Drane v. Brown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drane-v-brown-mied-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack