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

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JON ROYAL FLEMING,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN QUINN,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5719RJB

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME

This matter comes before the court on petitioner’s motion for extension of time. Dkt. 72. The

court has considered the relevant documents and the remainder of the file herein.

On June 22, 2006, U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold issued a Report and Recommendation

that was noted for consideration on July 14, 2006. Dkt. 54. On June 27, 2006, petitioner filed a motion,

requesting an additional two weeks, until July 28, 2006, to file a objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Dkt. 57. On June 30, 2006, the court granted petitioner’s motion, and directed that he

file objections by July 28, 2006. Dkt. 58. On July 7, 2006, petitioner filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation. Dkt. 62. Petitioner has filed appeals of orders of the magistrate judge (Dkt. 65, 67) 

and other motions (Dkt. 60, 63, 64, 66); these motions are pending.

On July 24, 2006, petitioner filed a motion, requesting an emergency continuance of at least 60

days, in order to file responses and pleadings. Dkt. 70. Petitioner stated that he had been placed in

administrative segregation, had no court addresses, had none of his legal work, and had no access to a law

library. Id. On July 26, 2006, the court denied petitioner’s motion for extension of time on the basis that

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 73 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER

Page - 2

(1) petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge in this habeas

corpus action; (2) although he stated that he did not have court addresses, petitioner filed this motion in the

appropriate court; (3) should the court find merit in petitioner’s pending motions, the court may order

responses or replies as appropriate; and (4) petitioner has already been granted an extension of time, and he

had had ample opportunity to access the court. Dkt. 71.

On July 24, 2006, petitioner filed another motion for extension of time that was docketed after the

court’s order denying petitioner’s motion for extension of time. Dkt. 72. In the interest of fairness, the

court has considered this motion. In this motion, petitioner states that he is unable to raise legal issues

before this court because of an untreated injury, he has been retaliated against by prison officials and falsely

infracted, has inadequate access to his legal work and lack of library access, has severe mental illness, is

without counsel, is unable to write because of carpal tunnel syndrome, has no carbon paper or

photocopies, and has been threatened with infractions for filing grievances. Id. Petitioner also attached a

complaint against the State of Washington, and state agencies and officials, for violation of the Americans

with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Id.

On June 26, 2006, the court granted petitioner’s motion for extension of time to respond to the

objections of the magistrate judge. Dkt. 58. On July 7, 2006, petitioner filed objections to the Report and

Recommendation, although in those objections, he chose to address issues other than the merits of his

habeas corpus petition. Dkt. 62. On the same day that he filed these objections, petitioner filed several

motions (Dkt. 63, 64, 66) and objections to orders of the magistrate judge (Dkt. 65 and 67). In addition,

along with this six page motion for extension of time that petitioner filed on July 24, 2006, he included a

copy of a detailed six page complaint lodged with the prison, apparently on July 7, 2006, alleging lack of

treatment for his mental illness, retaliation by the Department of Corrections staff, and placement in the

Intensive Management Unit. Petitioner has had ample time to file objections to the merits of this habeas

corpus petition, but he has not done so, even after the court granted him additional time. The court should

deny petitioner’s motion for extension of time. The court notes that the complaint petitioner filed with this

motion for extension of time relates to petitioner’s conditions of confinement. It has not been filed as a

separate civil complaint, and it is not appropriate to consider petitioner’s allegations in this complaint in

connection with his petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 73 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

Page - 3

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for extension of time (Dkt. 72) is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any

party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 

DATED this 31st day of July, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05719-RJB Document 73 Filed 07/31/06 Page 3 of 3