Ruhl v. Williams

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

TYLER A. RUHL,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 23-3053-JWL

TOMMY WILLIAMS1,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner and state prisoner Tyler A. Ruhl. (Doc. 1.) It comes before the Court on Petitioner’s motion for additional time to file a memorandum of law in support of his petition, filed the same day as the petition. (Doc. 2.) Therein, Petitioner’s counsel informs the Court that he filed the petition to ensure that the federal habeas statute of limitations is met, but he needs additional time to research and prepare a memorandum in support.2 He also advises the Court that counsel for Respondent has been contacted and does not object to the extension of time. The motion will be granted. Petitioner is granted to and including March 27, 2023, in which to file a memorandum in support of the petition. When the memorandum is filed, the Court will proceed with the initial screening required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

1 The motion names as Respondents Tommy Williams and Kris Kobach, the Attorney General of the State of Kansas. (Doc. 2, p. 1.) The sole proper respondent in a federal habeas action by a state prisoner is the person who has custody over the petitioner. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“[I]n habeas challenges to present physical confinement ... the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.”). 2 It appears that at the time this petition was filed, over 3 months remained in the federal habeas statute of limitations. If that is accurate, even if Petitioner’s counsel had waited the additional 30 days to file the petition, it would have been timely filed. The best practice in such circumstances is to wait and file the petition and all relevant supporting documentation at the same time. in the United States District Courts and issue further orders as necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for additional time to file a memorandum in support of the petition (Doc. 2) is granted. Petitioner is granted to and including March 27, 2023 in which to file a memorandum in support of the petition, after which the Court will proceed with the screening of this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 24th day of February, 2023, at Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge