Davis v. Wiley

Filing 51

ORDER denying 48 Respondent's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 05/08/09.(wjc, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 07-cv-00056-MSK-BNB MELVIN LEE DAVIS, Petitioner, v. R. WILEY, Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on the Respondent's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief [Doc. #48, filed 5/7/09] (the "Motion"). The Motion is DENIED. The petitioner is incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") at the United States Penitentiary-Administrative Maximum in Florence, Colorado. The petitioner filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. #6] (the "Application") on February 12, 2007. The Application asserts three claims. Claim Three challenges the BOP's calculation of the petitioner's sentence. The respondent filed a response to the Application [Doc. #18] on July 10, 2007. Because the Application and the response did not provide a complete accounting of the sentencing calculations, I held an evidentiary hearing to further address the issue on May 6, 2009. During the hearing, a BOP official offered to submit further briefing on the petitioner's sentence calculation. I declined further briefing on the issue, reminding the respondent that the evidentiary hearing was set for the very purpose of presenting all evidence and arguments pertinent to the petitioner's sentence calculation. The respondent again seeks to submit supplemental briefing on the issue. The request is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Dated May 8, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge 2 3

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?