USA v. HARRIMAN et al

Filing 41

ORDER Requiring Further Explanation. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY HARRIMAN,
KATHRYN HARRIMAN, and
UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS of
207 Burnham Road, Troy, Maine,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-00113-JAW

ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER EXPLANATION
Regarding the Defendants’ second issue, they claim that the United States
failed to execute the Writ of Execution within sixty days as required by law.
Regarding this argument, the Harrimans point to language in the Court’s Execution
of Ejectment docketed on January 9, 2013 in which the Court ordered the United
States Marshal to return the Writ “according to law, within the next sixty days.”
Execution of Ejectment at 1 (ECF No. 28). The Court’s Order was identical to a
proposed Order submitted by the United States. United States of Am.’s Req. for
Execution of Ejectment Attach. 1 (ECF No. 27).
The Court is unclear as to the source of the sixty day requirement, whether it
is a matter of rule, statute or regulation. None of the Government’s filings mention
it. To assist the Court in evaluating the merits of the Defendant’s motion, the Court
ORDERS the United States to immediately supply the Court with the authority

under which it claims the right to a writ of execution and, more specifically, the
authority for the sixty day requirement.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 29th day of April, 2015

2