Marchetti v. Department of Corrections
| Mark A. Marchetti |
| Department of Corrections |
| 1:2020cv23940 |
| September 28, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| K Michael Moore |
| Lisette M Reid |
| Lurana S Snow |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 25, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 1/15/2021. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 11/25/2020. See attached document for full details. (tsr)
|
| Filing 11 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re #10 Amended Complaint/Amended Notice of Removal by Mark A. Marchetti. (lk) |
| Filing 10 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Department of Corrections filed in response to Order Granting Motion for Leave, filed by Mark A. Marchetti.(lk) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as per DE 9 : Amended Complaint due by 11/16/2020. (lk) |
|
Filing 9
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Exceed the 20 Page Limitation Established for Memorandums of Law in Support of Petitioner's Amended Habeas Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254. #8 . Therein, Plaintiff requests leave to exceed the page limit set by Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida in his Amended Habeas Petition by thirty pages, to allow for a fifty-page petition. Id. Local Rules "serve more than a technical purpose, and are held in great esteem by courts around the country." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. B&A Diagnostic, Inc., 145 F. Supp. 3d 1154, 1158 (S.D. Fla. 2015). These rules apply indiscriminately to pro se litigants and litigants represented by counsel alike. Jablonski v. Travelers Companies, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-365-FtM-38CM, 2016 WL 614655, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2016). Here, while the Court finds that a brief expansion of the limit set by the local rules is appropriate, a fifty-page petition would unduly burden the Court's time and resources. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion #8 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff's Amended Habeas Petition shall not exceed a total of thirty pages. Further, Plaintiff is provided an additional ten days to submit the Amended Habeas Petition, which shall be filed on or before November 16, 2020, and otherwise in compliance with this Court's October 5, 2020, Paperless Order 6 . Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/29/2020. (hwr)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE 20 PAGE LIMITATION ESTABLISHED FOR MEMORANDUMS OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER'S AMENDED HABEAS PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. 2254 by Mark A. Marchetti. (jbs) |
| Filing 7 Clerks Notice of Receipt of WRIT of Habeas Corpus Filing Fee received on 10/8/2020 in the amount of $ 5.00, receipt number FLS100216564. (jcs) Modified text on 10/8/2020 (kpe). |
| Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as per DE 6 : Amended Complaint due by 11/6/2020. (lk) |
|
Filing 6
PAPERLESS ORDER. THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Petitioner's Motion for Leave and for an Extension of Time to File Amended Petition and Memorandum of Law in Support. #4 . Therein, Petitioner requests that the court grant leave to file an amended petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in ninety (90) days. However, as Petitioner conceded in his initial petition timely filed on September 21, 2020, the statute of limitations on Petitioner's claim expired on September 27, 2020. #1 at 23. Therefore, any claims raised in his final amended petition must relate back to the claims raised in the timely filed petition. Davenport v. United States, 217 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2000).Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion #4 , the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner's Motion for Leave and for an Extension of Time to File Amended Petition and Memorandum of Law in Support #4 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Petitioner shall file an amended petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 on or before November 6, 2020. The amended petition shall be the sole, operative pleading considered in this case, and only the claims listed therein will be addressed by the Court. Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (an amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case); see also S.D. Fla. L.R. 15.1. To be considered timely, the amended petition must only include claims that "have arisen from the same set of facts" as the claims in the initial petition. See Davenport, 217 F.3d at 1344 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, the amended petition should in no way refer to Petitioner's original filing, nor in any way incorporate by reference claims raised or arguments made in that filing. The facts alleged, and claims raised, in Petitioner's previous filings that are not specifically re-pled in the amended petition will be considered abandoned and voluntarily dismissed. Id. Signed by Chief Judge K. Michael Moore on 10/5/2020. (tsr)
|
| Filing 5 Case Reassignment of Paired Magistrate Judge pursuant to pro se magistrate repairing to Magistrate Judge Lurana S. Snow. Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid no longer assigned to case. (bla) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave and for an Extension of Time to File Amended Petition and Memorandum of Law in Support Due to Extraordinary Circumstances Related to Covid-19 Public Health Emergency ( Responses due by 10/14/2020) by Mark A. Marchetti. (jbs) |
| Filing 3 Clerk's Notice of Filing Deficiency Re: #1 Application/Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Mark A. Marchetti. Case not filed with required filing fees of $_5.00____ (habeas cases=$5.00) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1914(a), and the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. Summons(es) will not be issued until the filing fee is paid or an order granting the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is entered. (kpe) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Chief Judge K. Michael Moore and Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid. Pursuant to Administrative Order 2019-2, this matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. (kpe) |
| Filing 1 APPLICATION/PETITION (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, filed by Mark A. Marchetti. Filing fee $ 5.00. NOT PAID/NO IFP FILED. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(kpe) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Marchetti v. Department of Corrections | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mark A. Marchetti | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Department of Corrections | |
| Represented By: | Noticing 2254 SAG Miami-Dade/Monroe |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
