STANLEY v. MCNEIL

Filing 31

ORDER granting 30 MOTION for Clarification as explained in this order. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE STEPHAN P MICKLE on 9/19/2012. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORID
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
SCOTT A. STANLEY,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO.: 4:09CV164-SPM/MD

SECRETARY KENNETH S. TUCKER,
Respondent.
_______________________________/

ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Petitioner’s
Motion for Clarification Regarding Conflicting Decisions of this Court. Doc. 30.
Petitioner’s motion is based on the failure to comprehend the difference between
seeking leave to file a supplemental pro se brief on appeal and being entitled to
file a supplemental pro se brief as a matter of right.
The Court noted that in this case, Petitioner did not pursue a direct appeal.
He made no attempt to raise the claims in Grounds 1 and 3A on appeal either
through appointed counsel or by seeking leave to raise them in a supplemental
pro se brief. Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Petitioner’s motion for clarification (doc. 30)

Page 2 of 2

is granted as explained in this order.
DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of September 2012.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle
Stephan P. Mickle
Senior United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:09CV164-SPM/MD