From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Siddiq v. Boening

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
Jan 13, 2009
CASE NO.: C08-0593-TSZ-MAT (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO.: C08-0593-TSZ-MAT.

January 13, 2009


ORDER


Counsel for petitioner Abdul Siddiq was twice granted additional time to file information relevant to the present proceedings but failed to meet both court-ordered deadlines. (Dkts. 22, 23.) Nearly two months after the first extended deadline to do so, counsel submitted that he still plans to file a reply to respondent's answer. (Dkt. 25, at 7.) The Court therefore orders Mr. Siddiq's counsel to file a reply within seven (7) days of the date of this order. Respondent's answer to Mr. Siddiq's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (Dkt. 14) is noted for consideration on January 23, 2009.

Counsel's failure to file a reply under these circumstances would be sanctionable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Should respondent choose to file a surreply, he should inform the Court by telephone and Mr. Siddiq's counsel by telephone or facsimile of this fact as soon after receiving the reply as practicable. See, e.g., Local Rule W.D. Wash. CR 7(g).


Summaries of

Siddiq v. Boening

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
Jan 13, 2009
CASE NO.: C08-0593-TSZ-MAT (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2009)
Case details for

Siddiq v. Boening

Case Details

Full title:ABDUL SIDDIQ, Petitioner, v. RON VAN BOENING, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 13, 2009

Citations

CASE NO.: C08-0593-TSZ-MAT (W.D. Wash. Jan. 13, 2009)