Arrington v. Warden

Filing 70

ORDER denying 60 Motion for a Scheduling Order; denying 62 Motion to Stay; denying 68 Motion for a Scheduling Order. Petitioner is granted leave to amend his petition. Petitioner's Amended Petition due 11/30/2017. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/16/2017. (pts)

IN THE

UNITED

STATES DISTRICT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT

OF

COURT

FOR THE

GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

ROBERT OWEN ARRINGTON,
*

Petitioner,
CV

117-022

v.

WARDEN,

GDCP,

Defendant.

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Respondent's first and second
motions

for

a

scheduling

motion to stay (doc.

order

(docs.

60

&

68),

Petitioner's

62), and Petitioner's motion to amend (doc.

69) .x
First,

"[T]he

power

the

to

Court

stay

addresses

Petitioner's

proceedings

is

motion

incidental

to

to

stay.

the

power

inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes
on its docket with economy of time

counsel, and for litigants.
the exercise of judgment,
and

maintain

1

an

Document

Respondent's

even

69

is

effort

for

itself,

for

How this can best be done calls for
which must weigh competing interests

balance."

second motion

and

Landis

technically

for

v.

North

Petitioner's

a scheduling

order,

construes it as a motion to file an amended petition.

American

Co.,

response

but the

to

Court

299

U.S.

248,

the

competing

warranted

254

(1936) (citations

interests,

in

this

the

omitted).

Court

case.

does

After

not

balancing

believe

Accordingly,

the

a

stay

Court

is

DENIES

Petitioner's motion to stay.
Second,

his

In

the

Court

petition

and

Respondent's

previous

requests

a

to

amend

scheduling

order.

dismissed

Petitioner's petition without prejudice.

Petitioner,

therefore,

shall have FORTY-FIVE days

of

Corpus
prior

petition.

Rule
to

4

from the date

The

requires

requiring

the

for

motion

explicitly

amended

order,

Petitioner's

Court

an

its

addresses

an

a

Court

notes,

district

answer

by

Order to

however,

court

the

this

to

that

review

respondent.

file

Habeas

petitions

Because

the

Court has

not had an opportunity to review Petitioner's amended

petition,

the Court will not set any deadlines for Respondent's

answer

amended

at

time.

petition,

review.
should

this

If,
not

Respondent
scheduling

the

after

dismiss

to

file

order

Rather,

Court

an
at

conduct

an

its

review,

the

amended petition,

amended
that

receiving

will

conducting
the

upon

the

answer.

time.

Thus,

It

Petitioner's

initial
Court

Court

will
the

Rule
finds

will

also
Court

4
it

order

set

a

GRANTS

Petitioner's motion to amend and DENIES Respondent's motions for
a scheduling order.

Accordingly,

the Court DENIES Petitioner's motion

to stay

(doc. 62), it DENIES Respondent's motions for a scheduling order

(docs.
(doc.

60

&

68),

and

it

GRANTS

Petitioner's

motion

to

amend

69).
ORDER

October,

ENTERED

a

t Augusta,

Georgia,

this

/ LP

day
d

2017.

J.

RANDAL HALL,

UNITED /STATES

SOUTHERN

CHIEF JUDGE

DISTRICT

DISTRICT

COURT

OF GEORGIA

of