Richardson v. United States of America
ORDER denying 50 Richardson's Motion to Reject Government's Supplemental Briefing Response as Deficient and Untimely. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on 6/11/2012. (dkc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 09-22349-CIV-SEITZ/GOODMAN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
ORDER DENYING RICHARDSON'S MOTION TO REJECT GOVERNMENT'S
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING RESPONSE AS DEFICIENT AND UNTIMELY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Darryl Richardson's Motion
to Reject Government's Supplemental Briefing Response as Deficient and
Untimely. [ECF No. 50]. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Richardson's
On April 18, 2012, Richardson filed a motion for leave to supplement his
section 2255 motion with a brief on the recent Supreme Court decision in Lafler
v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) . [ECF No . 45] . The Undersigned granted his
motion and ordered the parties to file memoranda discussing the impact they
believe the Lafler case has on Richardson's claims.
[ECF Nos. 46 ; 47].
parties complied by filing the required memoranda . [ECF Nos. 48; 49].
latest motion , however, Richardson urges the Court "to reject the Government's
supplemental briefing response as deficient and untimely" because he contends
the prosecutor served the memorandum out of time and did not sign it.
a. TIME FOR SERVICE
Richardson correctly points out that the government had twenty days to
file its memorandum and that the twentieth day fell on May 13, 2012. However, a
review of the docket indicates that the government complied with this deadline by
filing the memorandum on May 14, 2012 . [ECF No. 49]. This is because May
13, 2012 was a Sunday and, therefore, under the applicable rules, the deadline
was extended to the next business day.
As to the date of service, the government concedes that it did not mail its
memorandum to Richardson the same day it was filed . However, the prosecutor
states that she requested that it be mailed on that date and was unaware that her
request was not granted until she received a copy of Richardson's motion. Given
that (1) the Court's order requiring this filing did not permit Richardson to reply,
(2) Richardson has not contended these deficiencies prejudiced him in any way,
and (3) the Court has been flexible in permitting Richardson to make various
filings not specifically authorized under the rules governing section 2255 motions,
memorandum despite the fact the government served it out of time .
Richardson also argues that the Court should disregard the government's
memorandum because the prosecutor did not sign it. On both the copy of the
document actually filed and the copy attached as an exhibit to Richardson's
motion, the prosecutor's signature block appears in pertinent part as follows:
Karen E. Rochlin
The prosecutor contends that this format complies with Southern District of
Florida CMfECF Administrative Procedure 3J(1) (Effective December 1, 2011).
Procedure 3J states in pertinent part as follows :
(1) Attorney's Signature Block
A document filed electronically, requiring
an attorney's signature , shall be signed
according to the format below . An "s/"
signature has the same force and effect
as an original signature .
s/Pat T. Lawyer
Pat T. Lawyer
The Court notes that the general practice in this District is to sign
electronic filings as follows:
sf Pat T. Lawyer
Pat. T. Lawyer
However, the Court is also aware that in the past certain judges in this District
have preferred , or at least accepted , the style used by the prosecutor in this
Given the variety of acceptable practices , the Court will not reject the
government's brief due to its use of a less common, but acceptable, signature
block style .
For the reasons above , the Court DENIES Richardson's motion .
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, in Mi mi, Florida, this
UNITED SATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Patricia A. Seitz
All counsel of record
Darryl Richardson, pro se
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?