District Court, W.D. Washington, 2025

William W. Lumpkins v. Jason Bennett

William W. Lumpkins v. Jason Bennett
District Court, W.D. Washington · Decided December 8, 2025
William W. Lumpkins v. Jason Bennett

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE WILLIAM W. LUMPKINS, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-5852 Petitioner, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 9 BRIEFING v. JASON BENNETT, Respondent.

The Court raises this matter of its own accord. Petitioner William Lumpkins has been twice ordered to file supplemental briefing related to his habeas petition.

First, on March 29, 2024, the Court ordered Lumpkins to file a supplemental brief addressing (1) good cause for his failure to exhaust his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in state court; and (2) whether a stay would be futile given the time constraint of RCW 10.73.090. Dkt. No. 18 at 12–13. Lumpkins did not comply. Dkt.

No. 28.

On November 25, 2024, the Court appointed counsel to assist Lumpkins in addressing Respondent Jason Bennett’s argument that Lumpkins properly exhausted his state court remedies on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, that the state court reasonably rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim under clearly established federal law, and that no basis exists to stay this case. Dkt.

3 Nos. 19, 22. By January 2025, appointed counsel were prepared to provide the supplemental briefing but could not do so because Lumpkins failed to provide written authorization for counsel to file on his behalf. See Dkt. No. 29. Without filing the ordered supplemental briefing, Counsel withdrew from the case on September 23, 2025. Dkt. No. 30.

8 In the meantime, Lumpkins’ supplemental briefing in this matter remains nearly two months overdue. See Dkt. No. 28. The Court will provide Lumpkins one final opportunity to comply. Lumpkins is ORDERED to file his supplemental briefing within 14 days of this order. If he fails to do so, the Court will dismiss his habeas petition for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order.

13 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002) (district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing pro se prisoner’s habeas corpus petition for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with a court order).

17 Dated this 8th day of December, 2025.

18 A Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.