DAVID BOLLINGER v. E.K. MCDANIEL, et al.

Filing 322

ORDER - On May 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided Shinn v. Ramirez, S.Ct., Case No. 20-1009, 2022 WL 1611786 (May 23, 2022). The Court determines that Shinn may affect the parties positions. The Court will, therefore, or der the parties to amend their supplemental answer, reply, and response to reply, to address any effects of Shinn. Respondents will have 60 days from the date of this order (7/23/2022) to file an amended supplemental answer, responding t o Petitioner David Bollinger's Claim 7D. Petitioner will then have 60 days to file a reply to Respondents' amended supplemental answer. Respondents will then have 30 days to file a response to Bollinger's reply to their amended suppl emental answer. Reubart is substituted for William Gittere as the respondent warden. Clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect this substitution. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/24/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

DAVID BOLLINGER ,

Case No. 2:98-cv-01263-MMD-BNW

7

Petitioner,
v.

8
9

ORDER

WILLIAM REUBART, et al.,
Respondents.

10
11

In this capital habeas corpus action, Respondents have filed a supplemental

12

answer responding to Petitioner David Bollinger’s Claim 7D (ECF No. 309), Bollinger has

13

filed a reply (ECF No. 310), and Respondents have filed a response to Bollinger’s reply

14

(ECF No. 320).

15

On May 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court decided Shinn v. Ramirez, --

16

-S.Ct.---, Case No. 20-1009, 2022 WL 1611786 (May 23, 2022). The Court determines

17

that Shinn may affect the parties’ positions. The Court will, therefore, order the parties to

18

amend their supplemental answer, reply, and response to reply, to address any effects of

19

Shinn.

20

The amended supplemental answer, reply and response to reply will be treated as

21

superseding the supplemental answer, reply, and response to reply previously filed (ECF

22

Nos. 309, 310 and 320). Therefore, the parties should draft their amended supplemental

23

answer, reply and response to reply to be complete within themselves, without reference

24

to the previously filed supplemental answer, reply, and response to reply.

25

It is therefore ordered that Respondents will have 60 days from the date of this

26

order to file an amended supplemental answer, responding to Petitioner David Bollinger’s

27

Claim 7D. Petitioner will then have 60 days to file a reply to Respondents’ amended

28

1

supplemental answer. Respondents will then have 30 days to file a response to

2

Bollinger’s reply to their amended supplemental answer.

3
4

It is further ordered that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), William
Reubart is substituted for William Gittere as the respondent warden.

5

The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to reflect this substitution.

6

DATED THIS 24th Day of May 2022.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE