Veliz v. Flournoy

Filing 11

ORDER overruling Petitioner's 10 Motion for Reconsideration (Objections) re 9 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 2/24/2017. (ca)

?imteb States: Btsitrtct Cottrt

Jfor

^oitt][)eni I9ts(trtct of(^eorsta
pntitOlDttlt Btbtsstott

LAZARO VELIZ,

Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:16-cv-152

V.

J.V. FLOURNOY,

Respondent.

ORDER

Before the Court are Petitioner's Objections^ to the
Magistrate Judge's Order of January 6, 2017.

(Dkt. No. 10.)

After careful consideration, the Court OVERRULES these

^

Petitioner's Objections are docketed as a Motion for

Reconsideration.

(Dkt. No. 10.) However, "[fjederal courts sometimes
will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a
motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a
different legal category." Retic v. United States, 215 F. App'x 962,
964 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375,
381 (2003)). Federal courts "may do so in order to avoid an
unnecessary dismissal, to avoid inappropriately stringent application
of formal labeling requirements, or to create a better correspondence
between the substance of a pro se motion's claim and its underlying
legal basis." Id. (quoting Castro, 540 U.S. at 381-82). Although
Petitioner labels his motion as a "Motion for Reconsideration," a

review of this pleading reveals that he is objecting to the Magistrate
Judge's Order dated January 6, 2017. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion
is properly classified as an Objection, as opposed to a Motion for
Reconsideration.

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Objections, and the Magistrate Judge's Order remains the Order
of the Court.

On January 3, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion for Extension
of Time to File Response/Reply to Petitioner's Section 2241
Petition.

{Dkt. No. 7.)

Respondent cited the age of

Petitioner's underlying criminal case and the necessity of

coordinating a Response with the United States Attorney's Office
in the Southern District of Florida as his reasons for

requesting an extension of time.

(Id. at p. 1.)

On January 6,

2017 the Magistrate Judge granted Respondent's Motion for
Extension of Time.

(Dkt. No. 9.)

In this Order, the Magistrate

Judge explained that Respondent had not previously sought an
extension of time and had shown good cause for receiving a sixty
(60) day extension.

(Id.)

In his Objections, Petitioner contends that 60 (sixty) days
is an unreasonable and excessive extension of time in this case.

(Dkt. No. 10, p. 1.)

Specifically, Petitioner argues that

Respondent ''does not state what is the procedure . . . to obtain
petitioner's criminal files" and "does not demonstrate
insurmountable odds in which to obtain the files."

p. 2.)

(Id. at

Petitioner further contends that the Court should vacate

the Magistrate Judge's Order granting Respondent's Motion for an
Extension of Time because Petitioner was not given an

opportunity to object to Respondent's Motion prior to the entry

of that Order.

(Id. at p. 2.)

Finally, Petitioner argues that

Respondent should be given a maximum of twenty (20) days to
respond to his Section 2241 Petition, that the Court should set

a hearing within five (5) days concerning his Petition, and that
he should be released on bond during the pendency of this case.
(Id. at p. 3.)

A district judge must consider a party's objections to a
magistrate judge's order on a pretrial matter.
636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

See 28 U.S.C. §

However, the district

judge may modify or set aside that order, and reconsider the
pretrial matter, only ''where it has been shown that the
magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law."

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

After considering Petitioner's Objections in conjunction with

the Magistrate Judge's Order, the Court finds nothing clearly
erroneous or contrary to law in the grant of Defendant's Motion
for Extension of Time.

Contrary to Petitioner's assertions, a

sixty (60) day extension of time permitting Respondent to
coordinate with the United States Attorney's Office in the
Southern District of Florida and to gather materials relevant to

Petitioner's underlying criminal case—adjudicated over twenty

years ago—is reasonable.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES

Petitioner's Objections.

SO ORDERED, this

day of

LIS

\ GC^BEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE

UNI

ped/states district court

SOU

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

RN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

, 2017