Ray v. United States of America
Filing
4
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO UPDATE THE DOCKET AND DIRECTING UNITED STATES TO RESPOND. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 4/2/15. (Breen, J.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
RODERICK RAY,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Cv. No. 1:14-cv-01095-JDB-egb
Cr. No. 1:11-cr-10081-1-JDB
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO UPDATE THE DOCKET
AND
DIRECTING UNITED STATES TO RESPOND
On April 22, 2014, Movant, Roderick Ray, Bureau of Prisons register number 55858056, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution in Bennettsville, South Carolina1 (“FCI
Bennetsville”), filed a pro se Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. (§ 2255 Mot., ECF No. 1.)
It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 5(a) of the § 2255 Rules that the United States file a
response to the § 2255 Motion within twenty-eight days from the date of entry of this order.
It is further ORDERED that Movant’s trial counsel, attorney Dianne Smothers, is
released from the attorney-client privilege to the extent necessary to submit an affidavit of
counsel and such other documents as may be necessary for the United States to respond
adequately to Movant’s § 2255 Motion. All other matters shall remain privileged.
Pursuant to Rule 5(e), Movant may, if he chooses, submit a reply to Respondent’s answer
or response within twenty-eight days of service. Movant may request an extension of time to
1
The Clerk is directed to update Ray’s address on the docket.
reply if his motion is filed on or before the due date of his response. The Court will address the
merits of Movant’s § 2255 Motion, or of any motion filed by Respondent, after the expiration of
Movant’s time to reply, as extended.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of April, 2015.
s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?