From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Felix v. Ashcroft

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
Jan 9, 2003
No. C02-2330L (W.D. Wash. Jan. 9, 2003)

Opinion

No. C02-2330L

January 9, 2003


ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS


On November 27, 2002, petitioner filed, pro se, the instant habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition apparently seeks judicial review of the INS order for removal of petitioner to Belize. (Dkt. 3.) The Court granted petitioner leave to file in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 2.) On November 27, 2002, the Court ordered respondents to file a return to the petition. (Dkt. 4.) On the same date, petitioner moved for appointment of counsel, stating that he is a native of Belize and does not "comprehend the laws of this Great Nation," and that he also had a deadline with the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") on or about December 5, 2002. (Dkt. 5.) On December 16, 2002, the Court granted petitioner's motion, and ordered appointment of counsel. (Dkt. 7.) In the meantime, petitioner filed a Motion for Bond Hearing, which was noted for consideration on December 27, 2002. (Dkt. 6.)

On December 18, 2002, petitioner filed a motion to reserve his rights to hire a private attorney or remain pro se. (Dkt. 8.) Petitioner stated that he had had a conversation with the Federal Public Defenders office, and felt that there was a conflict of interest between himself and the attorneys there. ( Id. at 1.)

On December 20, 2002, private attorney Robert Pauw was appointed as counsel for petitioner. (Dkt. 9.) On the same date, respondents filed a preliminary return and motion for clarification/specificity. (Dkt. 11.) In their motion, respondents state that they have been unable to obtain a copy of petitioner's INS administrative file, but that they have accessed limited records through the Immigration Court Information System computer. ( Id. at 1-2.) Respondents also request that petitioner's counsel be ordered to file an amended petition which is more fact specific, as they cannot properly respond to the petition that was filed pro se. ( Id. at 4.)

On December 31, 2002, petitioner's appointed counsel entered his notice of appearance. (Dkt. 12.) Petitioner subsequently filed, pro se, two motions asking the Court for a Judgment By Default. (Dkts. 13 and 14.) The Court, having considered all of the pending motions, and the balance of the record, finds and ORDERS as follows:

(1) Motion for Bond Hearing . Petitioner's Motion for Bond Hearing (Dkt. 6) shall be RE-NOTED for January 31, 2003. Petitioner's new counsel may file a supplement to this motion no later than Friday, January 24, 2003. Respondents may file a reply to the motion no later than Thursday, January 30, 2003.

(2) Motion to Reserve Right to Hire Private Attorney . Petitioner's motion to reserve his right to hire a private attorney or remain pro se (Dkt. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT. Petitioner based his motion on the belief that he had a conflict of interest with the Federal Public Defenders office. ( Id. at 1.) However, petitioner's appointed counsel is, in fact, a private attorney. Therefore, his argument appears to be moot.

(3) Motion for Clarification . Respondents' motion for clarification of the habeas petition (Dkt. 11) is GRANTED. Petitioner's new counsel shall file an Amended Petition no later than Friday, February 7, 2003. Respondents shall file a return to the amended petition no later than Friday, March 7, 2003. Petitioner may file a reply to that return no later than Friday March 14, 2003.

The Court notes that in its Order Appointing Counsel (Dkt. 7), the Court stated that after counsel was appointed a telephone conference was to be scheduled to determine an appropriate briefing schedule. (Dkt. 7 at 2.) This Order serves as notice of the new schedule in lieu of a telephone conference.

(4) Motions for Judgment By Default . Petitioner's two motions for default judgments (Dkts. 13 and 14) shall be STRICKEN. At the time of filing those motions, petitioner was represented by counsel, and therefore, the Court cannot entertain any motions that come directly from petitioner. This Order does not prevent petitioner's counsel from re-filing such motions should he deem them appropriate in this case.

(5) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to all counsel of record, and to the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge.


Summaries of

Felix v. Ashcroft

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
Jan 9, 2003
No. C02-2330L (W.D. Wash. Jan. 9, 2003)
Case details for

Felix v. Ashcroft

Case Details

Full title:Glenford J. Felix, Petitioner, v. John D. Ashcroft, et al. , Defendants

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle

Date published: Jan 9, 2003

Citations

No. C02-2330L (W.D. Wash. Jan. 9, 2003)