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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?