Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00012-GMS

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NORMAN INGRAM, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CARROLL, Warden and JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III, Attorney General for the State of Delaware Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civ.Act.No. 07-12-***

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respondents move for an extension of time in which to file an answer to the petition. In support thereof, respondents state the following: 1. The petitioner, Norman Ingram, has applied for federal habeas relief,

alleging error by the state courts. D.I. 2. By the terms of the Court's order, the answer is due to be filed on April 2, 2007. 2. Counsel has been, and continues to be, diligently working on numerous

cases before this Court and the state courts. However, due to the one vacancy currently in the Appeals Division, the workload for the remaining attorneys has greatly increased. Counsel is doing his best to prioritize cases by date received. Further, the Chief of the Appeals Division must review all filings prior to submission and has been unable to do so due to his own substantial caseload. Finally, counsel has a previously scheduled vacation between April 1, 2007 and April 9, 2007. In light of the situation, additional time is needed to complete the answer and have it reviewed in the ordinary course of business.

Case 1:07-cv-00012-GMS

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 5

3.

Under Habeas Rule 4, the Court has the discretion to give respondents an

extension of time exceeding the 40-day limit in Civil Rule 81(a)(2). Clutchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473-74 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1985); Kramer v. Jenkins, 108 F.R.D. 429, 431-32 (N.D. Ill. 1985). The comment to Rule 4 expressly states that the district court has "the discretion to take into account various factors such as the respondent' workload" in s determining the period of time that should be allowed to answer the petition. 4. 5. This is respondents' first request for an extension of time in this case. Respondents submit that an extension of time to and including May 11,

2007, in which to file an answer is reasonable. Respondents submit herewith a proposed order.

DATE: March 28, 2007

/s/ James T. Wakley Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8500 Del. Bar. ID No. 4612

Case 1:07-cv-00012-GMS

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 5

RULE 7.1.1 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that I have neither sought nor obtained the consent of the petitioner, who is incarcerated and appearing pro se, to the subject matter of this motion.

/s/ James T. Wakley Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8500 Counsel for Respondents

Date: March 28, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00012-GMS

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 28, 2007, I electronically filed the attached documents with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also hereby certify that on March 28, 2007, I have mailed by United States Postal Service, the same documents to the following non-registered participant: Norman Ingram SBI No. 00263838 Delaware Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road Smyrna, DE 19977

/s/ James T. Wakley Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8500 Del. Bar. ID No. 4612 [email protected]

Date: March 28, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00012-GMS

Document 14

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 5 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE NORMAN INGRAM, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CARROLL, Warden and JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III, Attorney General for the State of Delaware Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This _____day of _________________________, 2007, WHEREAS, respondents having requested an extension of time in which to file an answer, and WHEREAS, it appearing to the Court that the requested extension is timely made and good cause has been shown for the extension, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents' answer shall be filed on or before May 11, 2007.

Civ.Act.No. 07-12-***

____________________________ United States District Judge