Anderson v. Miller et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting in part 25 Motion to Address Issues, which the Court hasconstrued as a request for an extension of time of ninety (90) days to file a traverse, is GRANTED in part. It is further ORDERED that Applicant shall have up to and including January 7, 2016, to file a traverse, by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/18/2015.(cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00905-WJM
JAMES ANDERSON,
Applicant,
v.
MILLER, and
CYNTHIA COFFMAN, Attorney General of the State of Colorado,
Respondents.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the pro se Motion to Address Issues (ECF No.
25) filed November 17, 2015, by Applicant, James Anderson. Mr. Anderson alleges in
the motion that he has filed two motions with no response from the Court, including a
motion for an extension of time to file a traverse, and that he received a document on
October 15 that relates to another inmate’s case. Mr. Anderson does not identify the
second motion he alleges he filed. He requests in the Motion to Address Issues an
additional ninety days to file a traverse and he asks “that this matter please be fixed,”
that he “not be penalized in any manner,” and that he “be told what to do so that [he]
might move forward with [his] issues.” (ECF No. 25 at 3.) The Court construes the
Motion to Address Issues liberally as a request for an extension of time of ninety days
to file a traverse. That request will be granted in part.
The operative pleading in this action is Mr. Anderson’s second amended
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 8) filed

July 2, 2015. On July 6, Respondents were ordered to file a pre-answer response that
addresses the affirmative defenses of timeliness and exhaustion of administrative
remedies and Mr. Anderson was advised that he could file a reply within twenty-one
days after the pre-answer response was filed. On July 27, 2015, Respondents filed
their Pre-Answer Response (ECF No. 13). Mr. Anderson did not file a timely reply.
Instead, on September 17, 2015, he filed a “Request for Ext. of Time” (ECF No. 18)
requesting an additional ninety days to file a reply.
On September 23, 2015, the Court entered an Order to Dism iss in Part (ECF No.
22) that dismissed one of Mr. Anderson’s claims because it was not a cognizable
habeas corpus claim, denied the motion for extension of time, directed Respondents to
file an answer that fully addresses the merits of Mr. Anderson’s remaining claims, and
directed Mr. Anderson to file a traverse within thirty days after the answer is filed. On
October 22, 2015, Respondents filed their Answer (ECF No. 23).
Mr. Anderson’s request for an extension of time to file a traverse is timely and
will be granted in part. The request will be granted for a period of forty-five days only. If
Mr. Anderson requires additional time to file a traverse, he should file another motion
for an extension of time that addresses why he is unable to comply with the deadline
and what efforts he had made to comply. Mr. Anderson will not be penalized for
requesting an extension of time and this order addresses how the Court will proceed
with respect to the merits of his remaining claims. Mr. Anderson is reminded that he
may include in his reply any relevant arguments regarding his remaining claims that he
wishes to raise. Accordingly, it is

2

ORDERED that the Motion to Address Issues (ECF No. 25), which the Court has
construed as a request for an extension of time of ninety days to file a traverse, is
GRANTED in part. It is further
ORDERED that Applicant shall have up to and including January 7, 2016, to file
a traverse.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3