Case 1:06-cv-00779-JJF
Document 18
Filed 04/02/2007
Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE HAROLD P. SCOTT, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, and JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents. : : : : : : : : : : :
Civ. Act. No. 06-779-***
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, Harold P. Scott, has applied for federal habeas relief, filing a habeas
petition challenging his September 2004 sentence for a violation of probation. D.I. 11. 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 However, the workload for the Appeals Division attorneys is
this Court and the state courts.
currently very substantial. Counsel has substantially completed the answer in this case; however, the Chief of Appeals has not yet reviewed the answer as required in the ordinary course of business. The Chief is in meetings today, and he is unable to review the answer in time for a filing today. In light of the situation, additional time is needed to finalize the answer. 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-
Case 1:06-cv-00779-JJF
Document 18
Filed 04/02/2007
Page 2 of 5
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 determining the period of time that should be allowed s 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 April 10, 2007, in
which to file an answer is reasonable. Respondents submit herewith a proposed order.
DATE: April 2, 2007
/s/ Elizabeth R. McFarlan Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8500 Del. Bar. ID No. 3759
Case 1:06-cv-00779-JJF
Document 18
Filed 04/02/2007
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/ Elizabeth R. McFarlan Deputy Attorney General Counsel for Respondents
Date: April 2, 2007
Case 1:06-cv-00779-JJF
Document 18
Filed 04/02/2007
Page 4 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE HAROLD P. SCOTT, Petitioner, v. THOMAS CARROLL, Warden, and JOSEPH R. BIDEN, III, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Respondents. : : : : : : : : : : :
Civ. Act. No. 06-779-***
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 April 10, 2007.
____________________________ United States District Judge
Case 1:06-cv-00779-JJF
Document 18
Filed 04/02/2007
Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 2, 2007, I electronically filed a motion for extension of time with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF. I also hereby certify that on April 2, 2007, I have mailed by United States Postal Service, the same document to the following non-registered participant: Harold P. Scott SBI No. 149882 Delaware Correctional Center 1181 Paddock Road Smryna, DE 19977
/s/ Elizabeth R. McFarlan Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 577-8500 Del. Bar. ID No. 3759 [email protected]