Reesman v. Obenland

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Karen L Strombom re 31 Letter. (MET) cc: petitioner

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 9 JOEL PAUL REESMAN, NO. C14-5271 RBL/KLS Petitioner, 10 11 12 ORDER v. MIKE OBENLAND, Respondent. 13 14 By Order dated November 5, 2014, this habeas proceeding was stayed pending 15 resolution of Petitioner’s state court proceedings. Dkt. 28. On April 7, 2015 Petitioner filed a 16 motion asking for permission to file his additional grounds for relief and supplemental briefing 17 regarding his now exhausted claims. Dkt. 30. That motion is noted for consideration on April 18 24, 2015. 19 On April 14, 2015, the Clerk’s office received and filed a letter from petitioner 20 21 addressed to the Clerk of Court. Petitioner’s letter addresses mistakes in his April 7, 2015 22 filings including failure to provide proof of service and failure to serve a letter, that 23 accompanied the motion, on the Attorney General’s Office. See Dkt. 31. Petitioner asks how 24 he can get a copy of his previous letter to Respondent’s counsel and also states that he did 25 serve his motion to file supplemental briefing on Respondent’s counsel. Id. 26 ORDER -1 1 2 3 Petitioner’s prior letter is attached to the motion that is noted for consideration on April 24, 2015. See Dkt. 30. Thus, Respondent’s counsel has access to petitioner’s letter. The Court does not conduct business by letter. Letters are not noted on the motion 4 docket and may not come to the undersigned judge’s attention. Any future request for Court 5 6 7 action must be in the form of a motion that is properly filed, noted, and served on opposing counsel. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Petitioner and counsel for Respondent. 8 9 DATED this 16th day of April, 2015. 11 A 12 Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER -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?