Lamb v. Monroe Prison

Filing 6

ORDER FOR SERVICE AND ANSWER, §2254 PETITION by Hon. James P. Donohue. Served by certified mail on 5/15/2017 to Michael Obenland; Attorney General of Washington. General Order sent to Pltf. (Attachments: # 1 Pro Se Instruction Sheet)**6 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Brodie Lamb, Prisoner ID: 337609)(ST)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 BRODIE LAMB, Petitioner, 8 9 10 Case No. C17-319-RAJ-JPD v. ORDER FOR SERVICE AND ANSWER, § 2254 PETITION MICHAEL OBENLAND, Respondent. 11 12 13 This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently 14 incarcerated at the Monroe Correctional Complex and is subject to the Court’s Mandatory E- 15 Filing Project under General Orders 02-15 and 06-16. The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s 16 amended federal habeas petition, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: 17 (1) The Clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail upon respondent and upon 18 the Attorney General of the State of Washington, of copies of the amended petition (Dkts. 5 and 19 5-1), and of this Order. The Clerk shall also direct a copy of this Order and of the Court’s pro se 20 instruction sheet to petitioner. 21 (2) Within forty-five (45) days after such service, respondent shall file and serve an 22 answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States 23 District Courts. As part of such answer, respondent shall state whether petitioner has exhausted ORDER FOR SERVICE AND ANSWER, § 2254 PETITION - 1 1 available state remedies and whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Respondent shall not 2 file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing cause as to why an answer is 3 inadequate. Respondent shall file the answer with the Clerk of the Court and serve a copy of the 4 answer on petitioner. 5 (3) The answer will be treated in accordance with LCR 7. Accordingly, on the face 6 of the answer, respondent shall note it for consideration on the fourth Friday after filing. 7 Petitioner may file and serve a response not later than the Monday immediately preceding the 8 Friday designated for consideration of the matter, and respondent may file and serve a reply not 9 later than the Friday designated for consideration of the matter. 10 (4) Filing by Parties, Generally 11 All attorneys admitted to practice before this Court are required to file documents 12 electronically via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Petitioner shall file all documents electronically. 13 All filings must indicate in the upper right hand corner the name of the magistrate judge to whom 14 the document is directed. Any document filed with the Court must be accompanied by proof that 15 it has been served upon all parties that have entered a notice of appearance in the underlying 16 matter. Petitioner shall indicate the date the document is submitted for e-filing as the date of 17 service. 18 (5) Motions 19 Any request for court action shall be set forth in a motion, properly filed and served. 20 Pursuant to LCR 7(b), any argument being offered in support of a motion shall be submitted as a 21 part of the motion itself and not in a separate document. The motion shall include in its caption 22 (immediately below the title of the motion) a designation of the date the motion is to be noted for 23 consideration on the Court’s motion calendar. ORDER FOR SERVICE AND ANSWER, § 2254 PETITION - 2 1 (6) 2 No direct communication is to take place with the District Judge or Magistrate Judge with 3 4 Direct Communications with District Judge or Magistrate Judge regard to this case. All relevant information and papers are to be directed to the Clerk. Dated this 15th day of May, 2017. A 5 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 FOR SERVICE AND ANSWER, § 2254 PETITION - 3

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?