Williams v. Allen
Filing
10
ORDER directing Petitioner to file a Reply on or before 4/27/2012, addressing the arguments raised in 8 Response filed by Mike Allen. Petitioner shall file, on or before 4/27/2012, a document titled "Supplement to Habeas Petition" as directed. The Supplement must be signed by Petitioner & indicate the date it was signed. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 4/4/2012. (jct)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
VICTOR C. WILLIAMS
VS.
PETITIONER
3:12CV00014 JMM/JTR
MIKE ALLEN,
Sheriff of Crittenden County
RESPONDENT
ORDER
Respondent has filed a Response (docket entry #8) to the habeas Petition
arguing that it should be dismissed because: (1) Petitioner has failed to exhaust his
claims in state court; and (2) the signature page of his habeas Petition is not verified
under penalty of perjury as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2242.1
The Court concludes that a Reply to the Response would be helpful to the
resolution of this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.
Petitioner shall file a Reply, addressing the arguments raised in the
Response (docket entry #8), on or before April 27, 2012.
2.
1
Petitioner shall file, on or before April 27, 2012, a document titled
Petitioner did not file a form habeas Petition. The Petition is handwritten and
his signature page lacks a verification. (Docket entry #1 at 3).
“Supplement to Habeas Petition” which contains the following statement: “I declare
under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that: (1) I am
the Petitioner; (2) that I have read the Petition filed in this case on January 17, 2012,
or had it read to me; and (3) the information in the Petition is true and correct.” The
Supplement must be signed by Petitioner and indicate the date it was signed.
Dated this 4th day of April, 2012.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?