Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00831/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00831-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Joe Murdaugh,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-831-PHX-FJM

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for a 77-day extension of time to file his

motions for evidentiary development. Petitioner asserts that the additional time is necessary

“to complete a psychological and neuropsychological evaluation and the mitigation fact

investigation of his habeas petition.” (Dkt. 46 at 2.) Respondents oppose the request. (Id.

at 1.)

The Court’s briefing schedule was set at a case management conference held on May

27, 2009. At that time, the Court indicated that it expected the parties to adhere to this

schedule, absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. (Dkt. 18 at 2.) Nevertheless, this

is Petitioner’s third request for an expansion of that schedule. As with his earlier motions,

Petitioner does not identify extraordinary circumstances. Rather, he argues primarily that the

Court’s briefing schedule is unreasonable because it failed to provide him a full year to

conduct investigation and prepare his habeas petition. (Dkt. 46 at 3-4.) Indeed, it appears

from the instant request for an additional 77 days that Petitioner is attempting to have the

Case 2:09-cv-00831-FJM Document 47 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 2
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 - 2 -

evidentiary motions deadline coincide with expiration of the limitations period. 

Once a party has invoked the jurisdiction of a federal district court, that court “has

significant discretionary authority to set and enforce filing deadlines in accordance with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, even when those deadlines are difficult for lawyers to

meet.” Perez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart P.R., 440 F.3d 531, 533 (1st Cir. 2006); see also United

States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 515 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that government’s discretion

to investigate and present its case does not override district court’s authority to manage the

case, including setting deadlines). Petitioner’s repeated attempts to suggest otherwise are not

well grounded and instead evince a consistent refusal to abide by the Court’s case

management order. 

This Court set reasonable deadlines for preparation of the pertinent pleadings in this

matter. In accordance therewith, Petitioner has filed a 285-page petition supported by 157

exhibits, Respondents have filed a 190-page answer, and Petitioner has filed a 116-page reply

supported by 298 exhibits. Although Petitioner complains that his investigation is

incomplete, he neither identifies extraordinary circumstances warranting additional time nor

articulates how any remaining investigative tasks inhibit his ability to prepare requests for

evidentiary development. Accordingly, the request is denied.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Continue Motion for Evidentiary

Development (Dkt. 46) is DENIED.

DATED this 19th day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00831-FJM Document 47 Filed 01/19/10 Page 2 of 2