Maillet v. USA
Filing
11
ORDER denying as moot Petitioner's 8 "Notice in Regard to Movant's § 2255 Motion" which Court construes as a Motion to hold this action in abeyance; granting in part and denying in part, nunc pro tun c, Petitioner's 10 Motion for Extension of Time Due to Change of Address, and Petitioner has 30 days from entry of this Order to file Reply to Govt's Response to Motion to Vacate. (Reply due by 3/16/2018 plus an additional 3 days if served by mail). Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 2/14/2018. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (ejb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO: 1:17-cv-00244-MR
[Criminal Case No: 1:14-cr-00004-MR-1]
ROBERT MAILLET,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s “Notice in Regard to
Movant’s § 2255 Motion” [Doc. 8], which the Court construes as a motion to
hold this action in abeyance, and Petitioner’s “Motion for an Extension Due
to Change of Address” [Doc. 10].
The Government filed its Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate on
January 4, 2018. [Doc. 7]. Petitioner had seven days from service of the
Government’s Response to file a reply. LCvR 7.1(e). Petitioner filed his
motion to hold this action in abeyance on or about January 9, 2018. [Doc.
8]. Petitioner sought a stay because he had been informed of an impending
transfer from one federal penitentiary to another, and all of his legal materials
had been packed for that move.
On or about February 6, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant motion for an
extension of time to reply to the Government’s Response. According to the
motion, Petitioner’s transfer took almost a month to complete, but he is now
at his final destination. He seeks a 60-day extension of time to file his reply.
Although the motion for extension of time appears to have been made
in good faith and not for the purpose of delay, the time requested is
excessive. Accordingly, the Court shall grant the motion in part and deny it
in part by providing a 30-day extension of time.
The motion to hold this
action in abeyance shall be denied as moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Notice in Regard to
Movant’s § 2255 Motion” [Doc. 8], which the Court construes as a motion to
hold this action in abeyance, is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion for an Extension
Due to Change of Address” [Doc. 10] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART, nunc pro tunc. Petitioner shall have 30 days from entry of this
Order to file a reply to the Government’s Response to the Motion to Vacate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 14, 2018
2
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?