Opinion
2:15-cr-0190 KJM DB P
01-24-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. JAMES CHRISTOPHER CASTLE, Movant.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On May 24, 2022, movant, a federal prisoner, filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255. On the same day, he filed a notice of appeal. On August 16, 2022, this court ordered movant to show cause why he should be permitted to proceed with this §2255 action while his appeal was pending. Movant responded by dismissing his appeal on October 3, 2022. In an order filed October 31, 2022, this court ordered respondent to file a response to the §2255 motion within thirty days. On November 29, 2022, respondent requested an extension of time to file a response. Respondent's counsel explained that they needed additional time to obtain and review records and to conduct legal research in order to adequately respond to the multiple issues raised in movant's §2255 motion. On December 5, 2022, this court granted an extension of time.
On December 5 and 12, 2022, movant filed objections to respondent's motion for an extension of time. On January 3, 2023, movant filed a motion to modify the order granting that extension. In these filings, movant primarily argues that respondent has had sufficient time to prepare a response to the §2255 motion he filed in May 2022 and that respondent misled the court when counsel contended they needed to obtain transcripts.
This court will deny movant's motion to modify the December 5 order. The issues raised by movant do not demonstrate good cause for a modification. First, respondent had no obligation to prepare, or begin preparing, a response to the §2255 motion until the court ordered respondent to do so. See Rule 5, Rules Governing §2255 Cases. That order was issued on October 31. Therefore, movant's contention that respondent had months to prepare a response by the end of November is incorrect.
Second, movant's contention that respondent had access to all necessary transcripts is simply based on the fact respondent sought, and received, three transcripts during November 2022. In his § 2255 motion, movant raises six separate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The fact that respondent apparently requested, and received, three transcripts prior to November 29, does not mean respondent does not require additional records to respond to movant's claims. Nor does it mean that respondent had the opportunity to review all necessary records and conduct relevant legal research within thirty days.
Movant provides no basis for reconsideration of this court's order granting respondent's request for an extension of time to file a response to the §2255 motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant's motion (ECF No. 861) to modify the court's December 5 order is denied.