IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
May 2, 2008
JEFFERY MORRISON, PETITIONER,
DONALD HULICK, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge
Before the Court is petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition and Motion for Stay and Abeyance. (Doc. 37).
The court issued a Report and Recommendation on Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition and Motion for Stay and Abeyance on April 28, 2008. See, Doc. 35.
Petitioner's reply could be construed as a motion to strike in that he argues that the response to his motions (Doc. 34) should not be considered because it was filed late. Petitioner is incorrect. The response was timely according to the method of calculation set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Furthermore, even if the response were late, the court would not strike or disregard it.
The court notes petitioner's argument that the fact that he was without counsel constitutes good cause for his failure to move to amend within the one-year statute of limitations. He is incorrect. Ignorance of law, mistakes of law, and relying on incorrect legal advice do not constitute the kind of "extraordinary circumstances" necessary to toll the statute of limitations.
See, Lawrence v. Florida, 127 S.Ct. 1079, 1085 (2007); Williams v. Sims, 390 F.3d 958, 963 (7th Cir. 2004).
The court has carefully reviewed petitioner's reply, and finds it unnecessary to amend the Report and Recommendation. None of his arguments cause the court to change its recommendations.
To the extent that the Reply (Doc. 37) is construed as a motion to strike the response to petitioner's motions, that request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CLIFFORD J. PROUD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.