Opinion
CASE NO. 3:19-CV-05212-RJB-DWC
09-11-2019
JEROME CEASAR ALVERTO, Petitioner, v. MIKE OBENLAND, Respondent.
ORDER
The District Court has referred this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Currently before the Court are Petitioner Jerome Ceasar Alverto's Motion to Stay Proceedings, Motion to Extend Time, and Motion to Extend Time to File Reply to Respondent's Response. Dkt. 24, 28, 29.
I. Motion to Extend Time to Reply (Dkt. 29)
On August 16, 2019, Petitioner filed the Motion to Extend Time to Reply requesting an extension of time to file a reply to Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Stay. Petitioner attached the proposed reply to the Motion to Extend Time to Reply. See Dkt. 29-2.
On August 1, 2019, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay. Dkt. 24. The Motion to Stay was noted for the Court's consideration on August 16, 2019, which is the same date Petitioner's optional reply was due. See Dkt. 24; Local Civil Rule 7(d). As the Motion to Extend Time to Reply, with the attached proposed reply, was filed on August 16, 2019, the proposed reply was timely filed. Therefore, Petitioner's request for an extension of time is moot.
Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion to Extend Time to Reply (Dkt. 29) is denied as moot. The Court directs the Clerk to docket the proposed reply (Dkt. 29-2) as Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response to Motions to Stay and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 Relief (Dkt. 25).
II. Motion to Stay (Dkt. 24)
Petitioner filed the Motion to Stay on August 1, 2019, wherein he requests the Court stay this case while his Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order remains pending in his previously filed case, Alverto v. Obenland, 3:13-cv-05490-RJB-DWC (W.D. Wash.) ("first case"). Respondent filed a Response stating the Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order is frivolous and should be denied; thus, a stay is not warranted in this case. Dkt. 25. The Court has entered a Report and Recommendation in the first case recommending the Motion for Relief from Judgment be denied. See Alverto, 3:13-cv-05490 at Dkt. 88. As the Court has recommended the Motion for Relief for Judgment be denied, the Court finds a stay of this case is not warranted at this time. However, the Court finds an extension of time to respond to the Answer is appropriate. See Section III, infra. For these reasons, the Motion to Stay (Dkt. 24) is denied without prejudice.
III. Motion to Extend Time (Dkt. 28)
On August 14, 2019, Petitioner filed the Motion to Extend Time. Dkt. 28. Petitioner requests a 30-day extension to respond to Respondent's Answer because he has a pending Motion to Stay in this case and a pending Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order in the first case. Id. The Court has denied the Motion to Stay and has recommended the Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be denied. However, as the Report and Recommendation is still pending in the first case, the Court finds a 60-day extension of time to file a response to Respondent's Answer is warranted in this case.
Therefore, Petitioner's Motion to Extend Time (Dkt. 28) is granted as follows:
• Petitioner's response to Respondent's Answer is due on or before November 12, 2019.
• Respondent's reply to Petitioner's response is due on or before November 15, 2019.
IV. Conclusion
After reviewing the pending motions and the relevant record, the Motion to Extend Time to File Reply (Dkt. 29) is denied as moot, the Motion to Stay (Dkt. 24) is denied without prejudice, and the Motion to Extend Time (Dkt. 28) is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to docket the proposed reply (Dkt. 29-2) as Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response to Motions to Stay and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 Relief (Dkt. 25). The Clerk of Court is also directed to re-note Respondent's Answer for consideration on November 15, 2019.
Dated this 11th day of September, 2019.
/s/_________
David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge