Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION
ROGER WALDNER, Movant, No. C10-1003-LRR No. CR06-1019-LRR vs. ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
____________________________
This matter appears before the court on Roger Waldner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (docket no. 1). Roger Waldner (“the movant”) filed such motion on February 10, 2010.
The court conducted the required review under Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings and concludes that summary dismissal of the movant’s § 2255 motion is not appropriate at this time. See Blackledge v. Allison , 431 U.S. 63, 75-76, 97 S. Ct. 1621, 52 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1977) (making clear that summary dismissal is appropriate where the allegations are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false). Accordingly, the government is directed to file either an answer in accordance with Rule 5(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings or an appropriate motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 by no later than July 9, 2010. See Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. If the government elects to file an answer, the movant may file a reply by no later than July 23, 2010 . See Rule 5(d) of the Rules *2 Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. [1] In the event that an answer is filed by the government, the court will establish by subsequent order a briefing schedule.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of June, 2010.
[1] The court notes that, as a general matter, a movant may not bring up new matters in a reply brief. See McGhee v. Pottawattamie County , 547 F.3d 922, 929 (8th Cir. 2008); Barham v. Reliance Std. Life Ins. Co. , 441 F.3d 581, 584 (8th Cir. 2006); see also N.D. Iowa L. R. 7(g) (allowing a reply brief to be filed within 7 days after a responsive pleading is filed and explaining that a reply may assert newly-decided authority or respond to new or unanticipated arguments). 2