Free Order on Motion to Compel - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00573-FJM Document 52 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

William Floyd Smith, Petitioner, vs. Dora B. Schriro, et al., Respondents.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 04-573-PHX-FJM (MS) ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner's "Motion to Compel Case Citations and Law Relied Upon in Supplemental Answer" (Doc. # 51). Petitioner requests copies of all case law cited by Respondents in their supplemental Answer to Ground V. In their supplemental Answer, Respondents contend that Petitioner's trial counsel was not constitutionally deficient pursuant to the standard articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Court has ordered a Reply to Respondents' argument, which is currently due on February 17, 2006. The Court will order Respondents to provide Petitioner copies of all statutes and cases cited in the Answer addressing whether Petitioner's counsel was deficient under the constitutional standard, and if so, whether Petitioner suffered any prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

Respondents shall provide Petitioner, within 20 days of the date of the fling of this Order, copies of all statutes, cases, and rules cited in the supplementary Answer to Ground V related to the argument that Petitioner's counsel was not deficient under Strickland.

2.

Petitioner shall have 40 days from the filing of this Order to file a Reply. The Court does not anticipate granting any further extensions in the filing of a Reply and none should be expected.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2006.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00573-FJM Document 52 Filed 02/02/2006 Page 2 of 2