Brady v. Miller-Stout
Filing
25
ORDER granting 20 Petitioner's Motion to Lift Stay; Deferring Ruling on Petitioner's 21 MOTION to Amend the Petition; and Directing the Respondent to file an Answer on or before March 1, 2013; signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom. (GMR- cc: petitioner)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
4
5
6
MICHAEL JOSEPH BRADY,
NO. C11-6020 RJB/KLS
Petitioner,
7
8
9
MAGGIE MILLER-STOUT,
Respondent.
10
11
ORDER LIFTING STAY AND
DEFERRING RULING ON
MOTION TO AMEND
v.
Before the Court are Petitioner Michael Joseph Brady’s motion to lift stay (ECF NO.
12
20) and to amend his habeas petition. ECF No. 21. Petitioner seeks to add two additional
13
claims to his habeas petition, which presently list 34 habeas claims. Id. Respondent asks that
14
the Court defer ruling on Mr. Brady’s motion to amend until she has had an opportunity to
15
completely review Mr. Brady’s petition. Respondent also asks for additional time to file her
16
answer. ECF No. 23.
17
STATEMENT OF CASE
18
19
Mr. Brady filed a federal habeas corpus petition in this Court. ECF No. 1. He also
20
filed a motion for stay and abeyance of his petition. See ECF No. 9. Respondent filed a
21
response opposing Mr. Brady’s motion to stay, as well as a motion to dismiss his petition
22
without prejudice. ECF No. 10. On March 6, 2012, this Court issued an Order directing the
23
parties to submit further briefing in the case. ECF No. 12. The Court specifically directed the
24
parties to provide further information relating to (1) the status of Mr. Brady’s pending personal
25
26
restraint petitions that challenged his state court convictions; (2) Mr. Brady’s deadline to file
ORDER - 1
1
his federal habeas petition; and (3) the status of the Washington State courts’ determination of
2
the timeliness of his personal restraint petitions. See ECF No. 12, at 1. Mr. Brady and
3
Respondent submitted a response to the Court’s Order. ECF Nos. 13 and 14. The Court
4
5
subsequently granted a stay in Mr. Brady’s case, denied the Respondent’s motion to dismiss,
6
and directed Mr. Brady to file status reports as to the pendency of his pending state court cases
7
in Cause Nos. 86589-2, 86640-6, and 86856-5. See ECF No. 15. Mr. Brady filed the requisite
8
status reports and relevant certificates of finality. ECF Nos. 16-20 and 22. His last status
9
report noted that a certificate of finality has now been issued as to his last pending state
10
petition, in Washington Supreme Court Cause No. 86856-5. ECF No. 20.
11
Mr. Brady also seeks to amend his habeas petition, which already listed 34 habeas
12
13
claims, and seeks to add two additional claims, Claims 35 and 36. ECF No. 21. Respondent
14
does not object to lifting the stay, but asks that the Court defer ruling on the motion to amend
15
until she has had a complete opportunity to thoroughly review the entirety of Mr. Brady’s
16
petition, what appears to be his 11 state court personal restraint petitions, and his proposed
17
Claims 35 and 36 in relation to the rulings issued by the State courts as to those proposed
18
claims. ECF No. 23. Respondent proposes to address the motion to amend in her answer; if
19
Respondent takes the position that it should be denied, she will discuss her position as to why
20
21
denial is appropriate. If Respondent agrees that the motion should be granted, she will address
22
the proposed Claims 35 and 36 as is appropriate. Respondent also requests additional time to
23
prepare her answer to the habeas petition.
24
25
Given the present length of the habeas petition, the Court finds Respondent’s request
for additional time to be reasonable. The Court also finds it reasonable to defer ruling on Mr.
26
ORDER - 2
1
Brady’s motion to amend as there will be no prejudice to Mr. Brady. He will have an
2
opportunity to fully respond to Respondent’s answer, in which Respondent will address the
3
motion to amend. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
4
5
6
(1)
Petitioner’s motion to lift the stay (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED.
(2)
The Court shall defer ruling on Petitioner’s motion to amend the petition (ECF
7
No. 21) and the Clerk is directed to remove this motion from the Court’s calendar. Respondent
8
is directed to address in the answer whether Mr. Brady’s motion to amend should be granted or
9
denied. If the Respondent agrees that the motion should be granted, her answer shall address
10
the proposed Claims 35 and 36.
11
(3)
Respondent’s answer shall be due on or before March 1, 2013.
(4)
The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to Petitioner and counsel for
12
13
14
15
Respondent.
DATED this 30th of November, 2012.
16
17
A
18
Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
