Stanley v. Uttecht

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05399-JCC-JRC Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING REQUEST v. FOR OVERLENGTH BRIEFING AND DENYING REQUEST FOR Respondent. This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s request for permission to file over-length briefing (Dkt. 8) and to extend the time in which to file a reply in support of his motion for declaratory relief. Dkt. 9. The motion for over-length briefing (Dkt. 8) is granted, and the motion for an extension of time (Dkt. 9) is denied, for the reasons set forth below. Although petitioner initiated this matter by filing a motion for declaratory relief (Dkt. 7), after a show cause order from the Court, petitioner resubmitted this matter as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Dkt. 16. A habeas corpus petition may incorporate by reference a supporting brief. See Dye v. Hofbauer, 546 U.S. 1, 4 (2005). There is no particular page limitation for a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court will accordingly consider the arguments raised in petitioner’s motion for declaratory relief (Dkt. 7) when considering the merits of petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, which incorporates his motion for declaratory relief by reference. See Dkt. 16. The Court grants the request for overlength briefing, to the extent that

petitioner is requesting to have all the arguments raised in his motion for declaratory relief (Dkt. 7) considered when ruling on his habeas petition (Dkt. 16). Petitioner also requests that the Court grant him a one-week extension of time in which to file a reply brief in support of his motion for declaratory relief. Dkt. 9. Petitioner’s request for an extension of time is based on his assumption that he will have less than a week to draft a reply to respondent’s answer, under the briefing schedule applicable to a motion for declaratory relief. See Dkt. 9, at 2. But because petitioner has now filed a habeas corpus petition, petitioner will in fact have no less than two weeks to draft a reply to respondent’s answer. See Dkt. 22, at 3 (the answer will be noted for the fourth Friday after filing, with petitioner’s reply due the Monday before the fourth Friday). Therefore, petitioner’s request for an extension is denied. The denial

is without prejudice to petitioner’s ability to request a further extension of time, if necessary, after respondent files the answer. Dated this 8th day of December, 2020.

A J. Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge