KEVIN JAMES LISLE v. E.K. MCDANIEL

Filing 216

ORDER that 214 Motion for Stay and Abeyance is denied. FURTHER ORDERED that 215 Motion Extension of Time is granted. The schedule for petitioner to file any motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing related to his opposition to the motion to dismiss, and for respondents to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss, is vacated. The Court will set a new schedule for those filings after Lisle's counsel's ex parte motion to withdraw is resolved. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/28/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10

KEVIN JAMES LISLE,

Case No. 2:03-cv-01006-MMD-CWH
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

11
12
13

RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

14

In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on

15

December 26, 2014. (Dkt. no. 182.) The petitioner, Kevin James Lisle, filed an

16

opposition to that motion on April 27, 2015. (Dkt. no. 206.) After an extension of time,

17

Lisle had until May 27, 2015, to file any motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or

18

motion for evidentiary hearing related to his opposition to the motion to dismiss. See

19

Minute Order entered April 28, 2015 (dkt. no. 210).

20

respondents would then have 75 days following Lisle’s filing of any motion for leave to

21

conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing, related to his opposition to the

22

motion to dismiss, to file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss and to file responses

23

to any motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing. See

24

id; see also Minute Order entered May 5, 2015 (dkt. no. 212).

25
26

The court has ordered that

On May 12, 2015, Lisle’s counsel filed an ex parte motion to withdraw (dkt. no.
213). That motion is pending.

27

On May 18, 2015, Lisle filed a pro se “Motion for Stay and Abeyance” (dkt. no.

28

214). That motion is plainly meritless, and, moreover, as Lisle is represented by

1

counsel, the Court will not consider such pro se filings. See LR IA 10-6. Lisle’s pro se

2

motion will be denied.

3

On May 27, 2015, Lisle filed a motion for extension of time (dkt. no. 215),

4

requesting, in essence, that the briefing of the motion to dismiss, as well as any motion

5

for leave to conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing related to Lisle’s

6

opposition to the motion to dismiss, be suspended pending the resolution of Lisle’s

7

counsel’s ex parte motion to withdraw. Lisle’s counsel informs the Court that

8

respondents’ counsel joins in that motion. In the interests of judicial economy, the Court

9

will grant the motion for extension of time.

10
11

It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s pro se Motion for Stay and Abeyance (dkt.
no. 214) is denied.

12

It is further ordered that petitioner’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time

13

(dkt. no. 215) is granted. The schedule for petitioner to file any motion for leave to

14

conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing related to his opposition to the

15

motion to dismiss, and for respondents to file a reply in support of their motion to

16

dismiss, is vacated. The Court will set a new schedule for those filings after Lisle’s

17

counsel’s ex parte motion to withdraw is resolved.

18
19

DATED THIS 28th day of May 2015.

20
21

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2