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 ORDER DIRECTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

PAGE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

JEROME TALLEY, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C05-2030-MJP-JPD

)

v. )

)

REED HOLTGEERTS, ) ORDER DIRECTING

) SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

This is a federal habeas action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Currently before

the Court is petitioner’s amended habeas petition, submitted to the Court on May 9, 2006, in

which petitioner appears to allege violations of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and

his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches arising from his arrest and

prosecution on state criminal charges. (See Dkt. No.17.) Respondent, at the Court’s direction,

filed a response to the petition in which he argued that the petition should be dismissed for

failure to exhaust state court remedies. (Dkt. No. 20.)

Shortly after respondent filed his response in this matter, petitioner notified the Court

that he is now being held in contempt, indefinitely, pursuant to an Order of the King County

Superior 

Case 2:05-cv-02030-MJP Document 26 Filed 09/20/06 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 ORDER DIRECTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

PAGE - 2

Court. (See Dkt. Nos. 22 and 23.) While not entirely clear, it appears that the contempt order

was entered when petitioner refused to provide his fingerprints to the court at the time of his

sentencing. (See Dkt. Nos. 22 and 23.) 

Petitioner has now filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241, which

was posted in this action, in which petitioner alleges that he is currently being held in state

custody for contempt and that he has never been afforded a hearing or trial. (Dkt. No. 25.)

Petitioner contends that his current custody is in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

the United States.

Because petitioner’s new petition challenging his incarceration pursuant to a contempt

order arises out of the same criminal proceedings which petitioner challenges in his amended

habeas petition, the Court deems it appropriate to address the issue raised in the new petition in

this action. However, before proceeding to disposition of this matter, the Court will require

further briefing from the parties. 

Accordingly, the Court does hereby ORDER as follows:

(1) The Clerk shall send respondent a copy of petitioner’s July 17, 2006, petition for

writ of habeas corpus.

(2) Respondent shall file a response to petitioner’s contention that his current custody

pursuant to a contempt order violates his constitutional rights. Respondent shall file and serve

his response not later than October 10, 2006.

(3) Petitioner may file a reply to respondent’s response not later than October 17,

2006.

(4) This matter is NOTED on the Court’s calendar for consideration on October 20,

2006. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. No. 23) is RE-NOTED for the same

date.

Case 2:05-cv-02030-MJP Document 26 Filed 09/20/06 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 ORDER DIRECTING

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

PAGE - 3

(5) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Hon. Marsha J. Pechman.

DATED this 20th day of September, 2006.AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02030-MJP Document 26 Filed 09/20/06 Page 3 of 3