Opinion ID: 173003
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Order to File a Preliminary Response

Text: Ciocchetti’s second argument on appeal is that if exhaustion of administrative remedies was required, the district court erred in ordering the government to file a preliminary response rather than simply dismissing his petition. According to Ciocchetti, this decision impermissibly delayed his habeas proceedings. “District courts generally are afforded great discretion regarding trial procedure applications (including control of the docket and parties), and their decisions are reviewed only for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Nicholson, 983 F.2d 983, 988 (10th Cir. 1993) (citations and quotations omitted). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts is illustrative of this discretion. It states that in a § 2254 case: The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge under the court’s assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must order the respondent to file an answer, motion or other response within a fixed time or take other action the judge may order. Fed. R. Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 4. We assume that district courts are afforded similar discretion with respect to § 2241 petitions, and therefore we conclude that the district court did not abuse 8 its discretion by ordering the government to file a limited response to Ciocchetti’s petition. The district court had Ciocchetti’s futility claims before it and by seeking a response, the court afforded the government the opportunity to address these arguments. For the sake of judicial efficiency, the court limited the response to the exhaustion issue.