Michael Hampton Sonner v. E.K. McDaniel, et al, (DEATH PENALTY)

Filing 259

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 254 petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this court's order denying his prior Rule 60(b) motion is GRANTED. This court's order of 6/23/2013, is vacated to the extent it dismissed claims in Sonner� 39;s amended petition ECF No. 96 as untimely. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 45 days from the date on which this order is entered within which to file their answer to the following claims in the amended petition ECF No. 96 : C laims A-F, J-Z, AA-FF, HH, JJ-WW (except for PP4, TT2, TT10, and TT11), AAA-FFF, and LLL-YYY (except for XXX). Petitioner shall have 45 days following service of an answer by respondents to file and serve a reply. Respondents shall thereafter have 30 days following service of a reply to file and serve a response to the reply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 255 respondents' unopposed motion for extension of time is GRANTED nunc pro tunc as of 7/11/2019. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 10/2/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

MICHAEL SONNER,

10

Case No. 2:00-cv-01101-KJD-DJA
Petitioner,

v.

11
12

ORDER

WILLIAM GITTERE, 1 et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Before the court is petitioner Sonner’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s

16

order denying his prior Rule 60(b) motion. ECF No. 254. For reasons that follow, the

17

motion will be granted.

18

Sonner is a Nevada prisoner sentenced to death. On August 30, 2017, this court

19

entered a final judgment denying Sonner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

20

U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 232. On June 24, 2019, the court entered an order denying

21

Sonner’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 245) for lack of

22

jurisdiction because the case was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 250. With that

23

same order, however, the court issued an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 indicating it

24

would grant the motion if the Ninth Circuit elected to remand for that purpose. Id.

25
26
27
28

William Gittere, the current warden of Ely State Prison, replaces his predecessor, Timothy Filson, as the
primary respondent in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
1

1

On June 27, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted Sonner’s motion for a limited remand

2

in accordance with this court’s indicative ruling. ECF No. 253. Thus, this court no longer

3

lacks jurisdiction to rule upon Sonner’s Rule 60(b) motion. And, for reasons discussed in

4

the court’s order of June 24, 2019, the motion is meritorious – i.e., all the claims in

5

Sonner’s amended petition are timely under Williams v. Filson, 908 F.3d 546 (9th Cir.

6

2018). Consequently, Sonner’s motion asking the court to reconsider its denial of Rule

7

60(b) relief should be granted. Furthermore, respondents must now answer previously-

8

dismissed claims on the merits.

9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this

10

court’s order denying his prior Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No. 254) is GRANTED. This

11

court’s order of June 23, 2013, is vacated to the extent it dismissed claims in Sonner’s

12

amended petition (ECF No. 96) as untimely.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 45 days from the date

14

on which this order is entered within which to file their answer to the following claims in

15

the amended petition (ECF No. 96): Claims A-F, J-Z, AA-FF, HH, JJ-WW (except for

16

PP4, TT2, TT10, and TT11), AAA-FFF, and LLL-YYY (except for XXX). Petitioner shall

17

have 45 days following service of an answer by respondents to file and serve a reply.

18

Respondents shall thereafter have 30 days following service of a reply to file and serve

19

a response to the reply.

20
21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ unopposed motion for extension
of time (ECF No. 255) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc as of July 11, 2019.
2
October
DATED THIS ___ day of ________, 2019.

23
24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2