Owens v. Stirling et al

Filing 104

ORDER granting the Petitioner's 103 Motion for Extension of Time and directing Petitioner to file his Reply to the Response in Opposition to the 92 Motion for Authority to Conduct Discovery and Reply to the Responses in Opposition to the 93 Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Exhaustion of State Remedies on or before September 1, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 8/17/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Freddie Owens,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Bryan P. Stirling, Commissioner, South
)
Carolina Department of Corrections;
)
Joseph McFadden, Warden, Lieber
)
Correctional Institution,
)
)
Respondents.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:16-2512-TLW-PJG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(DEATH PENALTY CASE)

The petitioner in this capital habeas corpus matter, Freddie Owens (“Petitioner”), is a state
prisoner convicted of murder, armed robbery, and conspiracy and sentenced to death. On July 22,
2016, Petitioner filed a Motion for Authority to Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 92) and a Motion to
Stay Proceedings Pending Exhaustion of State Remedies (ECF No. 93). Subsequently, on August
8, 2016, Respondents filed separate responses to each of these motions (ECF Nos. 98 & 99). Then
on August 12, 2016, Respondents filed a document entitled “Corrected Response in Opposition to
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Exhaustion of State Court Remedies” (ECF No. 101), followed
by a document entitled “Amended Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Exhaustion of State Court Remedies” (ECF No. 102).1 On August 15, 2016, Petitioner filed a
Motion for Extension of Time, asking for ten (10) additional days to reply to Respondents’
Responses. Petitioner has indicated that counsel for Respondents consents to the request.

1

Respondents did not indicate if the previously filed Responses should be disregarded in
light of the Amended Response.
Page 1 of 2

The court hereby grants Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner is directed to file his Reply to the
Response in Opposition to the Motion for Authority to Conduct Discovery on or before September
1, 2016. Petitioner is directed to file his Reply to the Responses in Opposition to the Motion
(including the Corrected and Amended Responses) on or before September 1, 2016, and should
address all three filings, to the extent necessary, in one reply memorandum.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 103) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 17, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2