Sellards-Reck v. Shook

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 2, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05516
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 CASSANDRA SELLARDS-RECK, 9 Petitioner, Case No. C23-5516-MJP-SKV 10 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEADLINE 11 DAVID SHOOK, et al., 12 Respondents. 13

14 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and/or 25 U.S.C. § 1303. 15 Before the Court is Respondents Steve Barnett, Christine Pomeroy, and Jon Pound’s motion for 16 relief from the deadline to answer Petitioner Cassandra Sellards-Reck’s petition for writ of 17 habeas corpus.1 Dkt. 14. Petitioner opposes the motion. Dkt. 17. The Court has considered the 18 parties’ submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully 19 advised, the Court GRANTS Respondents’ motion. 20 Petitioner commenced this action on June 7, 2023, by filing a petition for writ of habeas 21 corpus naming Mr. Shook, Ms. Pomeroy, Mr. Pound, and Mr. Barnett as Respondents. Dkt. 1. 22 On June 15, 2023, the Court directed service of the petition on Respondents, ordering them to 23 1 Respondent David Shook “does not object to the extension of time and would welcome the additional time to obtain the necessary materials as well.” Dkt. 19 at 1–2. 1 file and serve an answer by August 4, 2023. Dkt. 10. On July 20, 2023, counsel for 2 Respondents Barnett, Pomeroy, and Pound appeared in this matter, Dkts. 12 & 13, and filed the 3 instant motion requesting to extend the answer deadline to September 8, 2023, see Dkt. 14. 4 The Court may grant relief from a deadline for good cause shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

5 6(b). This is Respondents’ first request for relief from a deadline in this matter and they argue 6 that the extension is necessary to allow their counsel, who was only recently retained, to get up 7 to speed on the complete record of the underlying criminal case and to gather information that is 8 pertinent in the tribal habeas context. Dkt. 14 at 4. Respondents further contend that because 9 Petitioner is not currently incarcerated, she faces “no concrete prejudice from the requested 10 extension.” Id. Petitioner argues the Court should deny the extension because the habeas statute 11 contemplates the writ being returned “within three days, unless for good cause, additional time, 12 not exceeding twenty days, is allowed.” Dkt. 17 at 2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243). Per Petitioner, 13 the Court already gave Respondents “45 days to respond, far more than allowed by the rules . . . 14 .” Id. Finally, Petitioner contends that Respondents should have hired counsel immediately, and

15 the fact that they did not do so should not prolong Petitioner’s detention. Id. 16 The Court possesses inherent power to grant a respondent additional time to file an 17 answer in a habeas corpus proceeding. See Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1474–75 (9th 18 Cir. 1985); Wallace v. Heinze, 351 F.2d 39, 40 (9th Cir. 1965). Given the nature of this case and 19 the record before the Court, the 35-day extension Respondents request is reasonable and unlikely 20 to unduly burden Petitioner, who is no longer incarcerated, see Dkt. 15 ¶ 8. Accordingly, the 21 Court finds that good cause exists for Respondents’ requested extension and GRANTS their 22 23 1 motion, Dkt. 14. Respondents shall respond to Petitioner’s petition on or before September 8, 2 2023.2 3 The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to the parties and to the Honorable 4 Marsha J. Pechman.

5 Dated this 2nd day of August, 2023. 6 A 7 S. KATE VAUGHAN 8 United States Magistrate Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 2 In opposing Respondents’ motion, Petitioner seeks relief pertaining to service and discovery. Dkt. 17 at 2–4. Because Petitioner does not do so by formal motion, Petitioner’s requests are not properly 23 before this Court, and the Court does not address them herein. See Colchester v. Lazaro, No. C20-1571- JCC, 2021 WL 2915411, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Wash. July 12, 2021) (denying a party’s request for attorney fees raised in opposition to a different motion).