Nguyen v. Uttecht

Filing 73

ORDER by Hon. James P. Donohue granting petitioner an additional two weeks to file an optional reply brief to respondent's Answer 70 71 . Petitioner's optional reply brief due 5/19/2017; Petitioner's habeas petition is RE-NOTED for 5/19/2017. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Hung Nguyen, Prisoner ID: 748016)(PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 HUNG VAN NGUYEN, Petitioner, 9 10 CASE NO. C16-1711-JCC-JPD v. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER TIME TO REPLY AND RENOTING HABEAS PETITION 11 JEFFREY UTTECHT, 12 Respondent. 13 14 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court has reviewed 15 petitioner’s April 25, 2017 Objections to the Order Directing Respondent to File a Second 16 Answer, Dkt. 68, as well as Judge Coughenour’s Minute Order overruling those objections, Dkt. 17 72. Petitioner asserts that he should have been allowed an opportunity to reply to the Second 18 Answer. Dkt. 68 at 2. As Judge Coughenour indicated in his Minute Order, “[t]he appropriate 19 way for Nguyen to address this is to file a motion . . . requesting additional time to reply to the 20 amended answer.” Dkt. 72 at 1. Although to date, petitioner has not done so, the Court 21 nevertheless shall GRANT petitioner an additional two weeks to file an optional reply brief to 22 respondent’s April 27, 2017 Answer. Dkt. 70. 23 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER TIME TO REPLY AND RE-NOTING HABEAS PETITION - 1 1 Accordingly, petitioner shall file his optional reply brief by no later than Friday, May 2 19, 2017. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to RE-NOTE petitioner’s habeas petition for 3 consideration on May 19, 2017. 4 DATED this 4th day of May, 2017. 5 A 6 JAMES P. DONOHUE Chief United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER TIME TO REPLY AND RE-NOTING HABEAS PETITION - 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?