Williams v. Winn Correctional Center

Filing 14

ORDER granting 10 Motion to Compel. The State is hereby ordered, to provide Petitioner with a copy of the State's Answer, located in Document No. 7, and the State Court Record, located in Document 7-1, and file a certificate indicating that it has served Petitioner accordingly, within 14 days of the date of the Order. FURTHER ORDER granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time. Petitioner is allowed 21 days following the filing of the State's certificate of service in which to file any response he wishes to present. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Hayes on 7/7/14. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
LEON WILLIAMS, JR.
LA. DOC #281941

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-0117
SECTION P

VS.
JUDGE DONALD E. WALTER
WARDEN TIMOTHY KEITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES
ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion to Compel Service and Extension of Time.”
[doc. # 10]. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner’s Motion is GRANTED.1
On April 3, 2014, the Court ordered Respondent to file: (1) An answer; (2) “A
memorandum brief of law in support of all issues raised in the answer”; (3) “A certified copy of
the state court record, including transcripts of all proceedings held in the state courts”; (4) “A
certified copy of all documents, including all briefs or memoranda of any party, filed in
connection with any appeal, application for post-conviction relief, or writ application presented
to any and all state, district courts, appellate courts or the Louisiana Supreme Court”; and (5)
“Certified copies of, or citations to, all state court dispositions, including the Louisiana Supreme
Court decision pertaining to the conviction under attack.” [doc. # 3, p. 4-6]. In the same Order,
the Court ordered “that, as a condition to their acceptance by the Clerk, all future filings by
petitioner or respondent shall include a certificate indicating that a copy thereof has been
furnished to the other parties.” Id. at 6.

1

As this is not one of the motions excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor dispositive
of any claim on the merits within the meaning of Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this ruling is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with the standing
order of this Court. Any appeal must be made to the district judge in accordance with Rule 72(a)
and L.R. 74.1(W).

On April 23, 2014, the State complied with the Court’s order to file its Answer, the state
court record, documents filed in connection with Petitioner’s appeal, and state court dispositions.
[doc. #s 7; 7-1]. However, while the State filed a certificate of service indicating that it served
Petitioner with its Answer, it neglected to file a certificate of service indicating that it served
Petitioner with a copy of the remaining filings. [doc. #s 7; 7-1].
In the instant Motion, Petitioner contends that the State has not served him with any of its
required filings and, consequently, asks the Court to order proper service. [doc. # 10, p. 2]. He
also asks for an extension of time in which to respond to the State’s Answer and supporting
memorandum. Id.
The State responded to Petitioner’s Motion on June 19, 2014, and averred that it mailed
Petitioner a “copy of the State’s Response to the June 9, 2014 Order of this Court . . . .” [doc. #
13]. However, it appears that the State mis-read Petitioner’s Motion because the Court’s June 9,
2014 Order only ordered the State to file a complete, legible copy of the 26th Judicial District
Court’s ruling on collateral review. [doc. # 8]. Petitioner’s Motion, in contrast, asks for a copy
of all of the State’s required filings. [doc. # 10]. In short, the State responded to the Court’s
June 9, 2014 Order, not Petitioner’s Motion.
The Rules Governing Section 2254 cases (the “Habeas Rules”), in combination with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide the applicable procedural law in Section 2254
proceedings. Habeas Rule 5(c) states that “[t]he respondent must attach to the answer parts of
the transcript that the respondent considers relevant” and the “judge may order that the
respondent furnish other parts of existing transcripts or that parts of untranscribed recordings be
transcribed and furnished.” RULES GOV . SEC. 2254 CASES, R. 5(c).
The Fifth Circuit, in Sixta v. Thaler, held that the habeas rules and Federal Rules of Civil
2

Procedure, when considered together, require a respondent in a habeas proceeding to serve both
the answer and any exhibits on the petitioner. Sixta v. Thaler, 615 F.3d 569, 572 (5th Cir. 2010).
The court reasoned:
When the respondent does, in fact, attach exhibits to the answer, there can be little
dispute that those exhibits must be served together with the answer itself on the
habeas petitioner. Civil Rule 5(a) provides that “a pleading filed after the original
complaint” “must be served on every party.” In turn, Civil Rule 7 lists “an answer to
a complaint” as a “pleading” and Civil Rule 10(c) provides that “[a] copy of a written
instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.”
Considered together, the rules plainly require that the respondent serve both the
answer and any exhibits attached thereto on the habeas petitioner.
Id.
Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion, [doc. # 10], is GRANTED and IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the State, within fourteen (14) days (i.e. July 21, 2014) of the date of this
Order, provide Petitioner with a copy of all the documents located in Document # 7-1, provide
Petitioner with a copy of the State’s Answer located in Document # 7 in order to allay any
concern that the certificate of service accompanying the Answer is incorrect, and file a certificate
indicating that it has served Petitioner accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is allowed twenty-one (21) days
following the filing of the State’s certificate of service in which to file any response he wishes to
present.
In Chambers, Monroe, Louisiana, this 7th day of July, 2014.

__________________________________
KAREN L. HAYES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3