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)

Download PDF
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

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?