George W. Luster, Jr. VS Director Nevada Dept of Corrections, etal

Filing 135

ORDER that respondents shall have 60 days from entry of this order within which to respond to the petition, as amended. Petitioner shall have 30 days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 3/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8

GEORGE W. LUSTER, JR.,
Petitioner,

9
10

2:04-cv-00334-RLH-NJK

vs.
ORDER

11
12
13

DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Respondents.

14
15
16

This matter comes before the Court for initial review of petitioner’s sixth amended
petition (#123).

17

Petitioner’s counsel recently filed a motion to withdraw due to health reasons.

18

Petitioner, through counsel, thereafter filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of

19

Appeals. Petitioner did not file any counseled motion for relief in the district court – other than

20

the motion to withdraw as counsel – prior to seeking mandamus relief in the Court of Appeals.

21

Petitioner has instructed counsel to seek a writ of mandamus for immediate screening of the

22

matter on the current pleadings notwithstanding the pending motion for withdrawal of counsel.

23

He thus has elected to proceed forward on the current pleadings notwithstanding the time that

24

it would take for replacement counsel, if any, to get up to speed in the case. The case thus

25

will proceed forward – at this point and hereafter – on the current pleadings without regard

26

to any changes hereafter in counsel, if replacement counsel is appointed.

27

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that respondents shall have sixty (60) days from entry

28

of this order within which to respond, including potentially by motion to dismiss, to the petition,

1

as amended. Any response filed shall comply with the remaining provisions below,

2

which are tailored to this particular case based upon the Court’s screening of the

3

matter and which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 4.

4

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this

5

case shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, the

6

Court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in seriatum

7

fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. Procedural

8

defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to potential waiver.

9

Respondents shall not file a response in this case that consolidates their procedural

10

defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2)

11

as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents do seek dismissal of

12

unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall do so within the single motion to

13

dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically direct their argument to the standard

14

for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir.

15

2005). In short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, shall be included with the

16

merits in an answer. All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised

17

by motion to dismiss.

18

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents shall

19

specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state court

20

record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.

21

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that all state court record exhibits filed herein shall be filed

22

with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number.

23

attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers of the exhibits

24

in the attachment, in the same manner as in No. 3:06-cv-00087-ECR-VPC, ## 25-71. The

25

purpose of this provision is so that the Court and any reviewing court thereafter will be able

26

to quickly determine from the face of the electronic docket sheet which exhibits are filed in

27

which attachments. Counsel shall not file exhibits in a manner that requires this Court or a

28

reviewing court to go "fishing" through multiple unmarked attachments to find specific exhibits.
-2-

The CM/ECF

1
2
3
4
5

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that counsel additionally shall send a hard copy of all
exhibits filed to, for this case, the Las Vegas Clerk's Office.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of
the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition.
DATED: March 25, 2013.

6
7
8

_________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-