Walker v. Warden, RRM Orlando

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION RICHARD BARRETT DALE WALKER, Petitioner, v. Case No. 6:24-cv-955-WWB-DCI WARDEN, RRM ORLANDO, Respondent. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the following matters: 1. Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Video Evidence (Doc. 7) is DENIED without prejudice. In the event the Court determines that the video is relevant to the disposition of Petitioner’s habeas petition, an order will be entered providing Petitioner an opportunity to file it. 2. Petitioner has filed a document styled as a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 9), which the Court construes to be a Reply to the Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Although Petitioner filed a Reply to the Response, because he is appearing pro se, he is advised out of an abundance of caution that the denial of the Petition at this stage would represent a final adjudication of this case which may foreclose subsequent litigation on the matter. Accordingly, Petitioner shall have THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Order to file an Amended Reply to the Response if he chooses. If Petitioner files an Amended Reply, the Court will not consider any arguments raised in any previous reply. Upon the expiration of this time, the Petition, the Response, the Reply (Doc. 9), or the Amended Reply, if one is filed, will be taken under advisement, and an order will be entered without further notice. The Court will not address new grounds raised in the Amended Reply. In re Sealed Case, No. 23-5044, 2023 WL 5076091 , at *8 (D.C. Cir. July 18, 2023) (“It is well established that an argument first presented in a reply brief before the district court is forfeited.”); Oliveiri v. United States, 717 F. App’x 966 , 967 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Evans, 473 F.3d 1115, 1120 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[A]rguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are not properly before a reviewing court.”)). The Amended Reply may not exceed ten pages without leave of Court. 3. Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Reply,” Doc. 9), construed to be a Reply to the Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, is DENIED without prejudice. If Petitioner does not file an Amended Reply, the Court will consider the Reply (Doc. 9) in the disposition of this action. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 20, 2024. DANIEL C. IRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party