Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:05CV238LN.
January 9, 2006
ORDER
This matter came before the court on two pleadings filed by Bradley, styled "Pro Se Self Styled Motion of Objection" and "Pro Se Self Styled Motion for Enlargement of Time." Both of these Motions are directed toward the recent extension of time granted to the Respondents in this matter. A review of the docket shows that the Petitioner has amended his Complaint three times — twice at the insistence of the court and a third time on his own Motion. Every time the Complaint is amended, the Respondents are entitled to respond to that amendment. The last amendment was granted on December 20, 2005, which is the date that the Amended Petition is considered filed. The Respondents have been given until February 17, 2006, to respond to that Amended Petition, which is only a short extension beyond the date that it would normally be due.
The Petitioner has filed numerous Motions in this matter, each of which requires the court and counsel opposite to review and consider. The court is aware that the Office of the Attorney General struggles to keep pace with the hundreds of habeas petitions currently pending, and the attorneys in that office have sought extensions of time in numerous habeas cases, most of which have been granted. The Petitioner is likely unaware of this case load, which he increases each time he files a motion. The court also notes that the Petitioner has been willing to request extensions of time on his behalf, which have also been granted by the court.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Pro Se Self Styled Motion of Objection and Pro Se Self Styled Motion for Enlargement of Time are hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.