Williams v. Humphrey
Filing
45
ORDER denying 44 Motion to Stay; granting 44 Motion for Extension of Time. Responses due by 11/2/2015. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 9/30/15. (bcw)
77IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' OR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA'
SAVANNAH DIVISION
SEP 30 7 1', 1 5
JOSEPH WILLIAMS,
CL ER
Petitioner,
CASE NO. CV412-106
V.
BRUCE CHATMAN, Warden,
Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Center,
Respondent.
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner's Motion to Stay
Pleading Schedule or, in the Alternative, For an Additional
Thirty Days to File a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc.
44.) Petitioner requests additional time to reply because
his counsel is preparing for briefing and oral argument in
the Eleventh Circuit.' After careful consideration,
Petitioner's request for an extension is
GRANTED.
As
a
result, Petitioner's motion for an evidentiary hearing is
1
The Court notes that Petitioner requested a stay of the
pleading schedule because Petitioner had filed a Motion to
Reconsider (Doc. 44) this Court's July 26, 2013 and
September 3, 2015 orders denying discovery. (Doc. 35, Doc.
42.) Petitioner stated that the Court "contemplated" a
motion for reconsideration and should therefore further
extend the filing deadlines. However, Petitioner's
characterization of the Court's order is inaccurate. The
Court did not invite a motion for reconsideration of its
previous orders on discovery. Instead, the Court merely
noted that a motion for reconsideration would be timely if
such motion was filed after the Court's entering of its
September order addressing discovery. (Doc. 35 at 15.)
due no later than November 2, 2015. Petitioner should be
aware that the Court will grant no further extensions in
regards to this filing. All other deadlines provided in the
scheduling order (Doc. 26) remain unchanged.
SO ORDERED this
3-
day of September 2015.
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?