Is the Sixth Circuit's holding in-Martinez v. United States, that the 25 page limit under Local Rule 7.1 applies to §2255 Motions, inconsistant with Rule 2(b), which places no page limits on §2255 motions (or 2254 motions)?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , 1) Is the Sixth Circuit's holding in-Martinez v. United States, that the 25 page limit under Local Rule 7.1 applies to §2255 Motions, inconsistant’with Rule 2(b), which places no page limits on §2255 ; motions (or 2254 motions); . : 2) Can the Government contravene 2255 Rules 4(b) & 5(b), which ' directs that,it must file an answer addressing all allegations in ., the §2255 motion, when directed to do so by the district court if the motion is not summarily dismissed, by filing a "pre-answer" motion to strike the §2255 motion for excess pages that the district : court took no issue with in it's preliminary review; re 3) Does a district court's preliminary review of §2255 or §2254 Los motions exceeding a local rule page limit and order directing the : -respondant to file an answer, implicity grant permission to exceed such page limits; — oo . 4) Does a district court abuse its discretion in granting a motion to strike §2255 motion for excessive pages without also determining whether such an action is in the interest of justice and does not : . undermine the principle of this court that: the purpose of a civil . pleading is to facilitate a .proper decision on the merits. a A . . : CORPORATE DISCLOSURE oe _ The