Summary
This federal district court order addresses procedural matters in a state prisoner's habeas corpus petition. The court denied two pro se filings—a motion to reconsider and an unsigned motion for an extension of time—while granting a single thirty-day extension to file an opening brief. The judge warned that failure to comply with the new deadline may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court may deny a motion to reconsider or vacate judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) when no final judgment has been entered
Holdings
- The court denied Cooley's motion to reconsider or vacate judgment because no final judgment exists, and therefore Rule 60(b) does not apply.
- The court denied the motion for extension of time filed by a nonlawyer but exercised its discretion to grant a one‑time, thirty‑day extension for filing the opening brief.
Key quotations
“The Court therefore cannot grant a motion for an extension of time entered by a nonlawyer on Cooley’s behalf.”
“Because Cooley is proceeding without an attorney and seems confused by habeas procedure, the Court will grant him a one-time, thirty (30) day extension of the deadline to file his opening brief.”
Factual background
Alvin Cooley, a state prisoner at Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution, filed a habeas petition alleging violations of his Confrontation Clause rights and his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
Procedural history
Cooley filed a habeas petition on April 1, 2025; the court screened the petition, set briefing schedule, and later denied Cooley's motions to reconsider under Rule 60(b) and to extend time, while granting a 30‑day extension to file the opening brief