Opinion
Case No. C14-5407 BHS-KLS
07-07-2014
JEFFREY SCOTT ZIEGLER, Petitioner, v. PATRICK GLEBE, Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT AND DENYING
MOTIONS FOR BILL OF
PARTICULARS AND EXTENSION
Petitioner Jeffrey Scott Ziegler filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his custody under a state court judgment and sentence. Dkt. 5. The petition lists as ground one, "See Memorandum of Points and Authorities C310 5263 BHS/KLS through Ground Six) and Personal restraint Petition of J. Scott Ziegler." Dkt. 5, at 5. The memorandum was not attached to the petition. Mr. Ziegler also filed a motion to amend the petition with "Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Speedy Trial Violations Cause # 05-1-01088-6; Direct Appeal # 43591-8; WA Supreme # 89756-5." Dkts 11 and 12. Although Mr. Zielger's petition and amendment refer to briefing previously filed in state court and in this Court (C10-5263 BHS-KLS, dismissed without prejudice), Mr. Ziegler does not specifically identify the grounds for relief that he is pursuing in the habeas petition filed in this case.
Respondent moves for a more definite statement and asks the Court to direct Mr. Ziegler to provide a concise statement of the grounds for relief he intends to raise in the current petition. Dkt. 13. In response, Mr. Ziegler filed a motion for a "Bill of Particulars" and a motion for extension to extend his time to respond until Respondent responds to the "Bill of Particulars." Dkts. 15 and 16. In the "Bill of Particulars," Mr. Ziegler asks that Respondent provide a "bill of particulars" to enable Mr. Ziegler to file a memorandum of points and authorities. Dkt. 6, p. 6.
DISCUSSION
A habeas corpus petition must "specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner." Rule 2(c)(1), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The petition must also "state the facts supporting each ground." Rule 2(c)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. If a pleading is "so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The Court in a habeas corpus proceeding may "consider a motion from respondent to make the petition more certain." Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption, to Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
The Court agrees that the Respondent cannot reasonably be required to prepare an answer to the current petition because it does not specifically identify the actual grounds for relief now pursued by Mr. Ziegler in federal court. The petition refers to grounds raised in the prior petition and proceedings in state court, but the petition does not contain a concise statement of each ground now pursued in federal court. Simply referring to claims raised in a prior petition does not comply with Rule 2(c). The petition does not give Respondent fair notice of the actual claims Mr. Ziegler wishes to pursue in this action. In addition, it does not properly narrow the focus of the parties' briefing as there may be claims that are missed or claims that are addressed when they are no longer being pursued.
After Mr. Ziegler has filed and served a concise statement of grounds raised in his petition, Respondent will file and serve his answer and relevant state court record within 45 days. At that time, Mr. Ziegler will have an opportunity to file a reply to Respondent's answer.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1) Respondent's motion (Dkt. 13) is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file and serve a concise statement of the grounds raised in his petition by August 4, 2014. Respondent shall file and serve his answer within 45 days after service of the statement of the grounds for relief.
2) Petitioner's "Bill of Particulars" and motion for extension (Dkts. 15 and 16) are DENIED.
3) The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this Order to the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent.
__________
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge