KLEEM, ET AL.
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Justice Scalia, acting as Circuit Justice, denied an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in an immigration case, holding that a party's general desire for additional time to research constitutional issues does not constitute "good cause" under Supreme Court Rule 20.6 and federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 2101(c), which permits extensions up to 60 days only when good cause is demonstrated.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.
Counsel for applicants has asked for a 60-day extension of time in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The stated reason for the request is that the case presents “important questions under the Constitution of the United States which were determined adversely to the petitioner by the court below,” and counsel desires “additional time to research and prepare the Writ of Certiorari.”
Writs of certiorari in civil cases “shall be . . . applied for within ninety days” after entry of the subject judgment, 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c), which period may be extended by a Justice of this Court (up to an additional 60 days) “for good cause shown,” ibid. Under this Court’s Rule 20.6, requests for extensions of time “are not favored.” In this case, counsel has given no reason for his request other than his desire for additional time to research constitutional issues. The same reason could be adduced in virtually all cases. It does not meet the standard of “good cause shown” for the granting of a disfavored extension. Pursuant to the Rules of this Court, the application for extension is
Denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Penry v. Texas, 515 U.S. 1304 (U.S. 1995)…7th ed. 1993). The reasons offered by counsel in this application fall short. As I have previously observed, all applicants can honestly claim that they would benefit from additional time [*1306] to prepare a petition for certiorari. Kleem v. INS, 479 U. S. 1308 (1986) (opinion in chambers); see also Madden, supra, at 1304. By their own account, counsel here filed a brief of 376 pages, raising 132 assignments of error, in the Court of Criminal Appeals; it is inconceivable that this could have been achieved…