Dinwiddie v. Lindamood

Filing 10

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO MODIFY RESPONDENT AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE. Signed by Chief Judge J. Daniel Breen on 5/10/2016. (Breen, J.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
PAUL WALLACE DINWIDDIE,
Petitioner,
v.
TAMMY FORD,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-1210-JDB-egb

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO MODIFY RESPONDENT
AND
DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE RESPONSE
On August 22, 2014, Petitioner, Paul Wallace Dinwiddie, Tennessee Department of
Correction number 97804, an inmate at the Whiteville Correctional Facility (“WCF”) in
Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus
by a Person in State Custody (“§ 2254 Petition”). (§ 2254 Pet., Dinwiddie v. Lindamood,
1:14-cv-01210-JDB-egb (W.D. Tenn.), Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) No. 1.)1
It is ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, that Respondent file a response within twenty-three days of the entry
of this Order. The response shall include the complete trial and appellate record of Petitioner’s
original case and any subsequent state petitions for collateral relief.
Pursuant to Rule 5(e), Dinwiddie may, if he chooses, submit a reply to Respondent’s
answer or response within thirty days of service. He may request an extension of time to reply if

1

The Clerk is directed to substitute current WCF Warden Tammy Ford for Cherry
Lindamood as the respondent in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
1

his motion is filed on or before the due date of his response. The Court will address the merits of
the petition or motion after the conclusion of Petitioner’s time to reply, as extended.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of May, 2016.

s/ J. DANIEL BREEN
J. DANIEL BREEN
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2