Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00786-SLR Document 17 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LYNN HARRIS, :
Petitioner,
v. Civil Action No. 06-786-***
THOMAS CARROLL, Warden and
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, lll, Attorney General :
for the State of Delaware, 3
Respondents.
&Q
At Wilmington this 30"‘ day of ll/lay, 2007.
Petitioner, on It/lay 7, 2007, filed a motion for extension of time to file a
reply to Respondents’ answer to the petition. ln the answer, respondents noted that the
state record presently was not available. Under a separate motion, the court granted
an extension of time in which to obtain and file those records.
Although Rule 5 of the Rules for § 2254 matters authorizes the filing of a
reply within the time period established by the court, at this time, petitioner's request is
premature since the state records have not been produced, and any review by the court
would be limited by this fact. If a reply is eventually authorized by the court, petitioner
will be advised ofthe time in which the reply will be due.
Petitioner also requests that the court enter a temporary restraining order
against the MHU Law Library and certain individuals in its employ. This request is not
part of a petition for habeas relief under the Rules governing such petitions. Further,
the court has no jurisdiction to grant the request. Therefore,

Case 1:06-cv-00786-SLR Document 17 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
IT IS ORDERED that petitioners request for extension of time (D.I. 16) is
presently denied as premature. After the filing of the state records, upon request by the
petitioner, the court will determine whether a reply will be authorized and if allowed, the
due date for its filing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s request for a temporary
restraining order is denied for the reasons contained herein.
4L ‘ l n
tates I\/lagistra ge