Carter v. Turley, No. 2:2002cv00326 - Document 270 (D. Utah 2008)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 267 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/09/2008. (asp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION DOUGLAS STEWART CARTER, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME vs. STEVEN TURLEY, Warden of the Utah State Prison, Case No. 2:02-CV-326 TS Respondent. Petitioner s counsel seeks a one-month extension of time to respond to the Respondent s Motion to Vacate Stay on the following grounds: (1) he is not yet fully recovered from major surgery; and (2) the other capital habeas cases he and his cocounsel handle require action during this same time frame. Respondent stipulates to the extension. The Crime Victim s Representative, Mr. Olsen, opposes the Motion on the ground that there has been repeated delay in this case. Mr. Olsen asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 2266(b)(1)(C)(i) allows only one 30-day extension, and points out this is the third request for an extension of time. Mr. Olsen also asserts the right to have these proceedings be free from unreasonable delay and the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for 1 the victim s dignity and privacy under the Crime Victim s Rights Act.1 Petitioner is correct that § 2266(b) does not apply to this case because it is not an opt-in case. However, it is also true that the delay in this case has been intractable. The Court will grant an additional 30-day extension due to counsel s health, a circumstance which could not be foreseen or avoided. However, all counsel should be aware that the Court will grant no further extensions of time on the basis of demands in other cases. All capital habeas cases are important and considering the age of this case, there can be no justification for seeking continuance in this case instead of in a more recent case. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner s Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Respondent s Motion to Vacate Stay (Docket No. 267) is GRANTED and Petitioner s Response is due November 17, 2008. DATED October 9, 2008. BY THE COURT: ___________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 1 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7), (8). 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
