Lietz v. Hepp

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 1/29/15 granting 2 Motion to Amend/Correct. Further ordeing that within 30 days of the date of this order respondent ANSWER the petition, showing cause, if any, why the writ should not issue. Further ordering the parties to abide by the schedule regarding the filing of briefs on the merits of petitioners claims herein. (cc: all counsel, via USPS to petitioner) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

THADDEUS M. LIETZ,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-0004

RANDY HEPP, Warden,
Fox Lake Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

ORDER
Petitioner Thaddeus Lietz filed this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pursuant
to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, I must give the case prompt initial
consideration.
If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must
dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. If the petition
is not dismissed, the judge must order the respondent to file an answer,
motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the
judge may order.
Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Having reviewed the petition, I conclude that it
does not plainly appear that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.
Accordingly, respondent will be ordered to file a response to the petition.
Petitioner has also submitted a motion to amend the name of the respondent to
Randy Hepp, warden of Fox Lake Correctional Institution, because he was recently
transferred. I will grant that motion.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to amend/correct
respondent (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 30 days of the date of this order respondent
ANSWER the petition, complying with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, and
showing cause, if any, why the writ should not issue.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall abide by the following schedule
regarding the filing of briefs on the merits of petitioner’s claims: (1) petitioner shall have 45
days following the filing of respondent’s answer within which to file his brief in support of
his petition; (2) respondent shall have 45 days following the filing of petitioner’s initial brief
within which to file a brief in opposition; and (3) petitioner shall have 30 days following the
filing of respondent’s opposition brief within which to file a reply brief, if any.
In the event that respondent files a dispositive motion and supporting brief in lieu
of an answer, this briefing schedule will be suspended and the briefing schedule will be as
follows: (1) petitioner shall have 45 days following the filing of respondent’s dispositive
motion and supporting initial brief within which to file a brief in opposition; and
(2) respondent shall have 30 days following the filing of petitioner’s opposition brief within
which to file a reply brief, if any.
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7(f), the following page limitations apply: briefs in support of
or in opposition to the habeas petition or a dispositive motion filed by respondent must not
exceed 30 pages and reply briefs must not exceed 15 pages, not counting any statements
of facts, exhibits, and affidavits.
Petitioner is advised that he must send copies of all future filings with the court to
counsel for respondent, no matter whether in letter, brief, memorandum, or other form.

2

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Attorney General and
this court, copies of the petition and this order are being sent today to the Attorney General
for the State of Wisconsin for service upon the respondent.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 29th day of January, 2015.

s/ Lynn Adelman
__________________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3