KEVIN JAMES LISLE v. E.K. MCDANIEL

Filing 236

ORDER that within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this order, Ellis shall file and serve, on Lisle's behalf, his supplement to Lisle's opposition to 182 Motion to Dismiss. Within fifteen (15) days after the filing of Lisle' ;s supplement to his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Lisle shall file any motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing related to his opposition to the motion to dismiss. Within forty-five (45) days after Lisle fil es any motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing related to his opposition to the motion to dismiss (or after the due date for such motion if Lisle files no such motion by that due date), respondents shall file their response to any motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing, and their further reply in support of their motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Lisle shall, within thirty (30) days, file his replies in support of any motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/16/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

KEVIN JAMES LISLE,

10

Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

11
12

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

RENEE BAKER, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

The respondents in this capital habeas corpus action filed a motion to dismiss on

16

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

17

opposition to that motion on April 27, 2015. (Dkt. no. 206.)

18

On May 12, 2015, Lisle’s counsel filed an ex parte motion to withdraw. (Dkt. no.

19

213 (sealed).) On May 28, 2015, the Court ordered further briefing of the motion to

20

dismiss, as well as the filing and litigation of any motion for leave to conduct discovery

21

and/or motion for evidentiary hearing related to Lisle’s opposition to the motion to

22

dismiss, suspended pending resolution of the ex parte motion to withdraw. (Dkt. no.

23

216.)

24

On June 11, 2015, the Court ordered respondents to file a reply in support of

25

their motion to dismiss, addressing one specific issue ― responding only to the

26

petitioner’s argument, at pages 4-10 of his opposition to the motion to dismiss, that the

27

State has waived the statute of limitations defense. See Order entered June 11, 2015

28

(dkt. no. 218). Respondents filed that partial reply on July 13, 2015 (dkt. no. 221).

1

On July 31, 2015, the Court denied Lisle's counsel's ex parte motion to withdraw.

2

(Dkt. no. 225 (sealed).) On August 21, 2015, Lisle's counsel filed an ex parte motion for

3

reconsideration. (Dkt. no. 229 (sealed).) On September 3, 2015, the Court granted the

4

motion for reconsideration, and ordered that it would appoint separate counsel for the

5

limited purpose of supplementing Lisle's opposition to the motion to dismiss, to assert

6

certain arguments regarding the issue of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations.

7

(Dkt. no. 231 (sealed).) On September 15, 2015, A. Richard Ellis was appointed to

8

represent Lisle for that limited purpose.

9

Therefore, the Court will now set a schedule for further briefing of the motion to

10

dismiss, and the anticipated motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or motion for

11

evidentiary hearing.

12
13

Within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this order, Ellis shall file and
serve, on Lisle's behalf, his supplement to Lisle's opposition to the motion to dismiss.

14

Within fifteen (15) days after the filing of Lisle's supplement to his opposition to

15

the motion to dismiss, Lisle shall file any motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or

16

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

17

Within forty-five (45) days after Lisle files any motion for leave to conduct

18

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

19

dismiss (or after the due date for such motion if Lisle files no such motion by that due

20

date), respondents shall file their response to any motion for leave to conduct discovery

21

and/or motion for evidentiary hearing, and their further reply in support of their motion to

22

dismiss.

23
24

Thereafter, Lisle shall, within thirty (30) days, file his replies in support of any
motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or motion for evidentiary hearing.

25
26

DATED THIS 16th day of November 2015.

27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2