MANUEL SAUCEDO LOPEZ V. E.K. MCDANIEL ET AL (DEATH PENALTY)

Filing 210

ORDERED that petitioner's motion for clarification (ECF No. 205) is GRANTED. (See pdf Order for specifics.) Respondents shall have 30 days from the date on which this order is entered (1/22/2020) within which to supplement their answer to addre ss the remaining claims in petitioner's second amended petition (ECF No. 126 ). Petitioner shall have 45 days following service of the supplement to file and serve a reply to petitioner's answer and supplement. Respondents shall therea fter have 30 days following service of a reply to file and serve a response to the reply. In all other respects, the scheduling of this matter is governed by the scheduling order entered June 28, 2016 (ECF No. 124 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tha t respondents' motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 201 / 202 / 203 ) are GRANTED nunc pro tunc as of their respective filing dates. Petitioner's unopposed motion to stay (ECF No. 209 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10

MANUEL SAUCEDO LOPEZ,

Case No. 2:01-cv-00406-RCJ-NJK
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

11
12
13

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,
Respondents.

14
15

Respondents have filed a motion for clarification with respect to this court’s order

16

of September 27, 2018 (ECF No. 182), deciding their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 139).

17

ECF No. 205. As grounds for their motion, respondents indicate they are unclear as to

18

what parts of Ground 2 and a related ineffective assistance claim (Ground 11.X) have

19

survived dismissal and remain before the court for a decision on the merits.

20

Most of the confusion centers on Ground 2.B, which alleges prosecutorial

21

misconduct relating to one of the State’s primary witnesses, Maria Lopez, who was

22

petitioner’s wife and the mother of the victim. In moving to dismiss claims in Lopez’s

23

second amended petition, respondents conceded that Grounds 2.B.5.i & j were not

24

procedurally defaulted, which this court recognized in ruling on the motion to dismiss.

25

ECF No. 139, p. 39; ECF No. 182, p. 21. Respondents did not, however, concede that

26

those parts of Ground 2.B were timely. ECF No. 139, p. 35. Instead, the only part of

27

Ground 2.B for which respondents admitted timeliness was the part challenging the

28

1

State’s grant of immunity to Maria. Id. This court agreed and, accordingly, ruled that

2

Ground 2.B was time-barred except for that lone part. ECF No. 182, p. 28.

3

With respect to the remainder of Ground 2, the court clarified in a prior order that,

4

in addition to Ground 2.C, Grounds 2.A and 2.B are not procedurally defaulted. ECF No.

5

192, p. 7. Even so, Ground 2.A is time-barred. ECF No. 182; p. 7-8, 13-15, 28. As

6

noted in the preceding paragraph, Ground 2.B is time-barred except for the part

7

challenging the State’s grant of immunity to Maria. Ground 2.C is time-barred except for

8

the part alleging the State offered false testimony and failed to disclose evidence in

9

relation to the processing of hair evidence. Id., p. 17-18. The remaining parts of Ground

10

2 are dismissed as procedurally defaulted and/or time-barred. Id., p. 28. Finally, Ground

11

11.X is time-barred except to the extent Lopez alleges ineffective assistance of counsel

12

in relation the aforementioned part of Ground 2.C that is not time-barred. Id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for clarification (ECF No.

13
14

205) is GRANTED. As explained above, the surviving parts of Ground 2 are the

15

following: (1) the part of Ground 2.B challenging the State’s grant of immunity to Maria

16

Lopez 1 and (2) the part of Ground 2.C alleging the State offered false testimony and

17

failed to disclose evidence in relation to the processing of hair evidence. Ground 11.X is

18

dismissed as time-barred except to the extent Lopez alleges ineffective assistance of

19

counsel in relation the surviving part of Ground 2.C that is not time-barred.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 30 days from the date

20
21

on which this order is entered within which to supplement their answer to address these

22

remaining claims in petitioner’s second amended petition (ECF No. 126). Petitioner shall

23

have 45 days following service of the supplement to file and serve a reply to petitioner’s

24

answer and supplement. Respondents shall thereafter have 30 days following service

25

of a reply to file and serve a response to the reply. In all other respects, the scheduling

26
27
28

This claim is essentially the same claim Lopez raised in Ground 13.A of his second amended petition. ECF
No. 126; p 96-97, 321-22. The respondents have answered Ground 13.A on the merits. ECF No. 207, p.
35-36.

1

2

1

of this matter is governed by the scheduling order entered June 28, 2016 (ECF No.

2

124).

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motions for extension of time

4

(ECF Nos. 201/202/203) are GRANTED nunc pro tunc as of their respective filing dates.

5

Petitioner’s unopposed motion to stay (ECF No. 209) is DENIED as moot in light of the

6

foregoing.

7

DATED THIS 23rd day of December, 2019.

8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3