Opinion
2:16-cv-01948-JAD-PAL
12-12-2016
Lonnie Lee Banark, Petitioner v. Warden Adams, et al., Respondents
Order
[ECF Nos. 8, 9, 10]
Petitioner Lonnie Lee Banark has submitted a pro se motion to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Having reviewed Banark's proposed amended petition under Habeas Rule 4, I find that the proposed amendments are potentially meritorious and warrant service on respondents.
ECF No. 9.
Banark has also filed a motion to "take notice of correct respondent." However, Banark has already named the correct respondent, the warden of the institution in which he is incarcerated. Accordingly, I deny Banark's motion as moot.
ECF No. 8.
Habeas Rule 2.
Banark has also submitted a "motion to help centralize exhibits," which I grant. Under Habeas Rule 5, respondents must submit copies of relevant state-court proceedings. However, if the parties need to refer to exhibits already filed by Banark with his original petition, they may do so and cite to the attachments to the original petition. Banark need not re-file these exhibits, which appears to be his concern.
ECF No. 10.
See ECF No. 6 at 13-83. --------
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Banark's motion to file an amended petition [ECF No. 9] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to FILE the amended petition, [ECF No. 9-1].
Respondents must respond to the amended petition by March 12, 2017. Banark will then have 45 days from service of the response to file a reply or opposition. All other briefing requirements in my November 1, 2016, scheduling order [ECF No. 5] remain in effect, except these amended deadlines.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Banark's motion to court [ECF No. 8] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Banark's motion to centralize exhibits [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED as set forth in this order.
Dated this 12th day of December, 2016.
/s/_________
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge