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
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?