ARRINGTON v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MEMORANDUM ORDER that Petitioner's request for an extension is denied. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner. Signed by Judge Peter G. Sheridan on 8/24/2017. (mps)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KHARY SHERRIF ARRINGTON,
Civil Action No. 17-263 8 (PGS)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Petitioner Khary SherrifArrington has filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2255, attacking a sentence imposed by this Court in United States v.
Arrington, No. 14-cr-0104, ECF No. 23 (D.N.J. entered July 22, 2014). The Court dismissed the
motion with prejudice. ECF No. 3. Presently before the Court is a request for extension from
Petitioner, seeking an extension to respond to the Court’s decision.
In his request, Petitioner refers to a 28-day deadline to respond. Id. at I. It appears that
Petitioner is referring to the deadline to file a Rule 5 9(e) motion under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 9(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no
later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”). However, this Court does not have the
authority to grant any extension with regard to a Rule 59(e) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2)
(“A court must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and
60(b).”). As such, the request must be denied.
IT IS therefore on this
ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for an extension, ECF No. 3, is hereby DENIED; and
it is further
ORDERED that that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner.
United States 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?