Opinion
Case No.: 07 CV 6791 Case No.: 01 CR 01
09-19-2011
CLARENCE HANKTON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
Linda M. Babich Law Offices of Linda M. Babich Attorney for the Petitioner
Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr.
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
MOTION TO VACATE PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 2255
NOW COMES the Petitioner, CLARENCE HANKTON, by and through his attorney, THE LAW OFFICES OF LINDA M. BABICH, and for his motion for judgment on motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255, states as follows:
1. On or about December 23, 2007, Petitioner, Clarence Hankton ("Hankton") filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255 and memorandum in support of that motion. That motion was filed pro se and this Court ultimately appointed counsel for the Petitioner to review the matters and file any additional documentation in support of said motion, should it be necessary. Present counsel was appointed, a briefing schedule was entered by the Court and this memorandum is supplemental support of the motion and memorandum Hankton filed previously.
2. On or about July 29, 2011, Counsel for the petitioner filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the original memorandum filed by the petitioner himself. Due to some previously undiscovered caselaw, counsel for Petitioner sought to file another supplemental memorandum without objection from the Government on August 3, 2011. On August 10, 2011, the Court granted Petitioner's motion and modified the briefing schedule to allow the Government 21 days or until August 31, 2011 to file its response. See a copy of the Court's docket in this matter attached as Exhibit A.
3. To date, the Government has not filed any response in this case although it was provided ample time to do so. See Exhibit A.
4. With this motion, the Petitioner requests that this Court enter a judgment on the documents submitted by the Petitioner in his favor and bar the Government from filing any response. Petitioner has been delayed numerous times previously by the Government and seeks only to have his petition heard and granted in accordance with the rules of this Court. See Exhibit A. Because the Government failed to seek an extension or otherwise notify the Court, it cannot claim that it would be prejudice by the Court entering its ruling and further baring it from filing a response.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, CLARENCE HANKTON, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court, issue a judgment and grant his petition pursuant 28 U.S.C. §2255, or for any such additional relief as this Court deems fair and just.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda M. Babich
Law Offices of Linda M. Babich
Attorney for the Petitioner