BERUBE v. UTTECHT

Case No. C17-288 RSM-BAT.

IVORY BERUBE, Petitioner, v. JEFFREY UTTECHT, Respondent.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


ORDER FOR SERVICE § 2254 PETITION, ANSWER, AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Magistrate Judge.

This is a federal habeas action filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court having reviewed Petitioner's amended federal habeas petition, hereby finds and ORDERS:

(1) Service

The Clerk shall arrange for service by certified mail on Respondent and on the Attorney General of the State of Washington, copies of the amended petition (Dkt. 8), all documents in support thereof, and this Order.

(2) Appointment of the Federal Public Defender

The Court appoints the Federal Public Defender for the Western District of Washington (FPD) as counsel for the Petitioner. The Clerk shall provide copies of the petition, and this Order to: Michael Filipovic, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700, Seattle, Washington 98101. The FPD shall confer with Petitioner. The Court's order of appointment will stand unless the FPD informs the Court by May 8, 2017 that Petitioner objects to the Court's order appointing the FPD and requests the appointment order be rescinded.

(3) Answer

Within sixty three (63) days after service, the Respondent shall file and serve an answer in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. As part of such answer, Respondent shall state whether Petitioner has exhausted available state remedies and whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Respondent shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate.

(4) Noting Answer

The answer will be treated in accordance with LCR 7. Accordingly, on the face of the answer, Respondent shall note it for consideration on the fourth Friday after filing. Petitioner's response and Respondent's reply shall be filed as set forth in LCR 7(d).

(5) Filing by Parties

All attorneys admitted to practice before this Court must file documents electronically via the Court's CM/ECF system. All filings must indicate in the upper right hand corner the name of the magistrate judge to whom the document is directed.

The parties are advised that when the total of all pages of a filing exceeds fifty (50) pages in length, a paper copy of the document (with tabs or other organizing aids as necessary) shall be delivered to the Clerk's Office for chambers. The chambers copy must be clearly marked with the words "Courtesy Copy of Electronic Filing for Chambers."

(6) Motions

Any request for court action shall be set forth in a motion, properly filed and served in accordance with LCR 7.

(7) Direct Communications with District Judge or Magistrate Judge

No direct communication is to take place with the District Judge or Magistrate Judge with regard to this case. All relevant information and papers shall be directed to the Clerk.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases