Polansky v. NH Department of Corrections, Commissioner et al

Filing 13

ORDER taking under advisement 12 Motion to Amend 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty. Amended Pleadings due by 4/15/2013.(mm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Christopher Polansky
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-3-PB

Richard M. Gerry, Warden,
New Hampshire State Prison
O R D E R
Before the court is Christopher Polansky’s filing entitled
“Amended Pleading to Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus” (doc. no. 12) (“Amended Pleading”).

The document is

filed in response to this court’s February 14, 2013, order (doc.
no. 10) directing Polansky to file an amended petition to show
cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely.
The Amended Pleading, construed liberally, is in part a
motion to amend Polansky’s § 2254 petition, and, in part, notice
to the court that he needs more than the thirty days granted in
the February 14, 2013, order to file an amended petition in this
matter.

Polansky previously filed a motion to extend the

deadline for filing an amended petition (doc. no. 11).

The

court, on March 7, 2013, granted the motion, allowing Polansky
until April 15, 2013, to file his amended petition.

It appears

that the court’s March 7 order and Polansky’s motion to amend
(doc. no. 11) crossed in the mail, and that Polansky did not see

the order granting him an extension before filing the Amended
Pleading (doc. no. 12).
To the extent Polansky intends his instant filing (doc. no.
12) to be a motion to amend the petition, that request is held
in abeyance pending review of any further supplemental
information Polansky may file in response to the February 14,
2013, order (doc. no. 10).

Polansky must file such supplemental

information in the form of an amended petition by April 15,
2013, in compliance with the directions set forth in the court’s
February 14 and March 7, 2013, orders.

Upon Polansky’s filing

of an amended petition, or the expiration of the time allowed
for doing so, the court will consider the assertions in
Polansky’s Amended Pleading (doc. no. 12), along with the
assertions in any new amended petition, in determining whether
Polansky has demonstrated that his petition should not be
dismissed as untimely.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
March 15, 2013
cc:

Christopher Polansky, pro se

LBM:jba

2