Opinion
22-3173-JWL-JPO
12-27-2022
KASTON HUDGINS, Petitioner, v. DAN SCHNURR, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
John W. Lungstrum United States District Judge
This matter is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 24, 2022, the Court directed Petitioner to show cause, in writing, why this matter should not be dismissed as time-barred. (Doc. 3.) Petitioner timely responded (Doc. 4), but the Court determined that it needed additional information to resolve the timeliness question, so on September 27, 2022, the Court ordered Respondent to submit a limited Pre-Answer Response (PAR) addressing the affirmative defense of timeliness (Doc. 6.) After seeking and obtaining a 60-day extension of time in which to file the PAR, Respondent has now filed the PAR, in which he asserts that the petition in this matter was untimely filed. (Doc. 9.) Respondent further argues that Petitioner has shown neither that equitable tolling of the filing deadline is justified nor that he is entitled to application of the actual innocence exception to the filing deadline. Id.
The Court will afford Petitioner the opportunity to reply to the arguments made in the PAR. Petitioner need not repeat the arguments for timeliness already made in his response to the Court's August 2022 Notice and Order to Show Cause. Indeed, if Petitioner does not wish to respond to the PAR, he need not do so. If he wishes to respond to the PAR, however, he will be granted until and including January 17, 2023 to do so. Upon receipt of the response or the passing of that deadline, whichever occurs first, the Court will issue further orders in this matter as necessary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner is granted to and including January 17, 2023, in which to file a response to the Pre-Answer Response (Doc. 9).
IT IS SO ORDERED.