United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Robert M. Lewis, Esq., United States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.
James Edward Thornberg, pro se.
ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration of Defendant James Edward Thornberg's "Rebuttal to the Government's Response" [Docket No. 128].
On March 14, 2014, Thornberg submitted a Motion to Vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Docket No. 118]. The Court required a response from the Government, which was filed April 30, 2014 [Docket No. 125]. On May 9, 2014, the Court denied Thornberg's motion to vacate. Mem. Opinion & Order [Docket No. 126]. On May 19, 2014, the Court received a memorandum from Thornberg which outlines his objections to the Government's Response.
The rules governing Section 2255 proceedings do not give the Defendant an automatic right to reply to the Government's Response. See U.S.C.S. Rules of Criminal Procedure, Section 2255 Rules, Rule 5(d); see also United States v. McElrath, No. 3-235, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49134, at *5-6 (D. Minn. June 11, 2009); United States v. Crittenton, Crim. No. 03-349-2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8940, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2008) ("No court has held that Rule 5(d) [of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings] entitles a petitioner to submit a reply under all circumstances. When a court does not request, permit, or require the additional argument that would be contained in a reply brief, § 2255 petitioners are not prejudiced by denial of an opportunity to file such a brief.").
Thornberg did not request an opportunity to reply to the Government's Response, and the Court did not request or require additional argument. Therefore, Defendant James Edward Thornberg's "Rebuttal to the ...