Grenning v. Key

Filing 52

ORDER for Supplemental Briefing: Respondent is directed to file, on or before 3/1/18, a supplemental answer addressing Ground 5 on the merits. Petitioner may file a supplemental traverse on or before 3/29/18. Respondent may file a reply to the suppl emental traverse on or before 4/6/18. The Clerk of Court is directed to re-note the Petition for consideration for 4/6/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Neil Grenning, Prisoner ID: 872019)(CMG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
NEIL GRENNING,
8

Petitioner,
9

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.

10

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05983-RJB-DWC

JAMES KEY,

11

Respondent.

12
The District Court has referred this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action to United States Magistrate

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Neil Grenning filed his federal habeas Petition seeking relief
from a state court conviction. See Dkt. 8. In his Petition, Petitioner raises nine grounds for relief.
Id. Respondent James Key filed an Answer arguing, in part, that Ground 5 of the Petition was
unexhausted and procedurally barred. Dkt. 16. Respondent did not provide additional arguments
regarding Ground 5 in the Answer. See id. Petitioner filed a Traverse asserting he exhausted
Ground 5 and also arguing the state court’s adjudication of Ground 5 was contrary to clearly
established federal law. See Dkt. 24. Respondent filed a Reply reasserting that Ground 5 is
unexhausted, but also contending that Ground 5 is without merit and should be dismissed. Dkt.
26.
The Court has reviewed the relevant record and finds the record indicates Petitioner
exhausted Ground 5 in his first state personal restraint petition. See Dkt. 17, Exhibit 54, pp. 5-6,

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING - 1

1 Exhibit 60, pp. 1, 10-12. As Petitioner has likely exhausted Ground 5, the Court will also review
2 Ground 5 on the merits.
3

In the Reply, Respondent provided some argument that Ground 5 should be dismissed

4 because it lacks merit. Dkt. 26. However, it is not clear if Respondent fully briefed Ground 5 on
5 the merits. See id. Further, as Respondent raised this argument for the first time in his Reply,
6 Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to respond to Respondent’s arguments regarding
7 whether Ground 5 should be dismissed on the merits. 1
8

To ensure the parties are provided with an adequate opportunity to brief Ground 5 on the

9 merits, the Court orders the following:
10

•

Respondent is directed to file, on or before March 1, 2018, a supplemental answer

11

addressing Ground 5 on the merits. If Respondent wishes to rely on the briefing provided in

12

the Reply, he may file notice with the Court stating as such.

13

•

Petitioner may file a supplemental traverse (response to the supplemental answer)

14

addressing only the new arguments raised by Respondent related to Ground 5 on or before

15

March 29, 2018.

16

•

Respondent may file a reply to the supplemental traverse on or before April 6, 2018.

17

The Clerk of Court is directed to re-note the Petition for consideration for April 6, 2018.

18

Dated this 1st day of February, 2018.

20

A

21

David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge

19

22
23
1

While Petitioner provided briefing on the merits of Ground 5, he did not have the opportunity to respond

24 to the new arguments raised in Respondent’s Reply.

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING - 2