Opinion ID: 688166
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to File a Reply Brief

Text: 25 The district court dismissed Malizzio's Sec. 2255 motion four days after the government filed its response to the motion. Malizzio argues that this impromptu ruling deprived him of an opportunity to reply and denied him due process. (Appellant's Br. at 4.) 26 Section 2255 allows a district court to deny a motion for post-conviction relief without even requiring the government to answer it when the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Furthermore, Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Sec. 2255 Proceedings suggests that the district court in its discretion may determine whether to allow a petitioner to submit a reply brief: 27 The motion, together with all the files, records, transcripts, and correspondence relating to the judgment under attack, shall be examined promptly by the judge to whom it is assigned. If it plainly appears from the face of the motion and any annexed exhibits and the prior proceedings in the case that the movant is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the movant to be notified. Otherwise, the judge shall order the United States Attorney to file an answer or other pleading within the period of time fixed by the court or to take such other action as the judge deems appropriate. 28 Rules Governing Sec. 2255 Proceedings, Rule 4(b), 28 U.S.C. foll. Sec. 2255 (emphasis added). 29 The filing of a reply brief is neither required by the Constitution nor essential for appellate review. See United States v. Birtle, 792 F.2d 846, 848 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming the denial of defendant's Sec. 2255 petition alleging that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a reply brief); see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(c) (The appellant may file a brief in reply to the brief of the appellee....) (emphasis added). Because Malizzio already raised and argued his claims in his Sec. 2255 motion, the lack of an opportunity to file a reply brief was not a denial of due process.