Abusada v. USA

Filing 22

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 15 Motion for Extension of Time ; denying 16 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 5/10/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10-cv-295
(3:08-cr-112)
VICTOR ABUSADA,
Petitioner,

)
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before this Court upon Petitioner’s Request to Reconsider Order
Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. No. 14); Motion for Extension of Time
(Doc. No. 15); and Motion to Strike Certain Statements in the Government’s Answer (Doc. No.
16).
The Court previously denied Petitioner’s request for appointed counsel. (Doc. No. 8:
Order). Petitioner asks for reconsideration of that ruling on the basis that discovery and an
evidentiary hearing are necessary in light of the Government’s subsequent motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. No. 14: Motion at 2). The Court has not determined that such steps are required
in this case; therefore, the request is premature. Secondly, Petitioner claims an attorney is
necessary to aid his collateral attack of state court convictions. (Id. at 3). Petitioner adequately
raised such claims in his petition; therefore, the Court finds that counsel is not required to assist
him.
Petitioner asks for additional time to file his response to the Government’s motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. No. 16). The Court previously directed Petitioner to file any response
by January 7, 2011. (Doc. No. 13: Order). Petitioner has now filed responses (Doc. Nos. 18, 19,

and 20), and the Government has not moved to strike them as untimely. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s request for additional time is moot.
Finally, Petitioner asks the Court to strike certain allegedly inaccurate statements from
the Government’s answer. (Doc. No. 16). While Petitioner understandably disputes the
Government’s position, he has not shown that the challenged representations are subject to being
struck pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (allowing the Court to
strike from a pleading “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner’s Request to Reconsider (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED;

2.

Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED AS

MOOT; and
3.

Petitioner’s Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED.

Signed: May 10, 2011

2