Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00831/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00831-3/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 60-day extension of time to file his reply

to Respondents’ answer to Petitioner’s § 2254 petition. Petitioner asserts that the additional

time is necessary “primarily in order to complete the fact investigation of his habeas

petition.” (Dkt. 39 at 2.) He further asserts that the Court’s briefing schedule is

unreasonable because it failed to provide him a full year to prepare his habeas petition. (Id.)

Respondents oppose the request. (Id. at 1.) 

A district 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 cites no

controlling authority that the habeas limitations period trumps this Court’s discretion to set

Case 2:09-cv-00831-FJM Document 40 Filed 12/17/09 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 -

case management deadlines. In Royal v. Taylor, 188 F.3d 239, 249-50 (4th Cir. 1999), on

which Petitioner relies, the court did not reach the issue of whether it was error not to provide

the petitioner the full limitations period to prepare his petition, ruling instead that “[a]ny error

was harmless.”

Although Petitioner complains that the Court’s briefing schedule has made it difficult

to pursue every avenue of investigation he believes is warranted, he was able nonetheless to

timely submit a 285-page petition for habeas relief supported by 157 exhibits. Respondents

likewise timely filed their answer. Petitioner has identified no specific basis to support a

finding that additional time is necessary for preparation of the reply to Respondents’ answer;

therefore, the request is denied. 

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Continue Reply to Answer to Petition

(Dkt. 39) is DENIED.

DATED this 17th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00831-FJM Document 40 Filed 12/17/09 Page 2 of 2