Campbell v. Easter et al
ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion for extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss 9 is granted. The time for Petitioner to respond to the Motion to Dismiss at Doc. 7 is extended to November 10, 2017. Petitioner's motion for discovery 10 is denied without prejudice. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 10/24/17. Mailed to pro se party Brian A. Campbell by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
BRIAN A. CAMPBELL,
CASE NO. 17-3145-SAC
JEFF EASTER, et al.,
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a prisoner in
state custody. Petitioner proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis. Petitioner claims a fugitive
detainer placed on him from the Mississippi Department of Corrections and Lowndes County
Court is illegal.
Petitioner seeks a finding that the Mississippi sentence has expired and
withdrawal of the fugitive warrant. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging Petitioner
failed to exhaust and that he is in custody because he faces additional state criminal charges
unrelated to the claims raised in his habeas petition.
This matter is before the Court on
Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) and motion
for discovery (Doc. 10).
Petitioner seeks an extension of time to respond, noting that a shortage of staff at the
Sedgwick County Jail is causing lock-downs.
Petitioner seeks an extension of time to
November 10, 2017. For good cause shown, the Court grants the motion. Plaintiff has also filed
a motion for discovery, seeking documents related to his Mississippi warrant. Because the
discovery request does not relate to the issues raised in the motion to dismiss, the Court denies
the request without prejudice to Petitioner refiling the motion if his case survives the motion to
dismiss. See Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254 (HC
Rule 6) (“A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.”); King v. United States, No. 16cv-1435-EFM-TJJ, 2017 WL 3723291, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 29, 2017) (“[A] stay pending a
ruling on a dispositive motion is appropriate where the case is likely to be finally concluded as a
result of the ruling, where the facts sought through the remaining discovery would not affect the
ruling on the pending motion, or where discovery on all issues in the case would be wasteful and
burdensome.”) (citations omitted).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Petitioner’s motion for
extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is granted. The time for
Petitioner to respond to the Motion to Dismiss at Doc. 7 is extended to November 10, 2017.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for discovery (Doc. 10) is denied
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of October, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow
U. S. Senior District Judge
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?