Ruffin v. Director Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 60

ORDER that petitioner's 59 motion for additional briefing and oral argument is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Petitioner's supplemental brief due in 7 days, respondent's supplemental response brief 7 days thereafter, and petitioner's optional supplemental reply brief 7 days after response filed. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 7/6/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8

KEVIN TYRONE RUFFIN,
9
Petitioner,

2:07-cv-00721-RLH-PAL

10
11

vs.

ORDER

12
13

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

14
15

This represented habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court on

16
17

petitioner’s motion (#59) for additional briefing and oral argument.

18

Petitioner seeks an opportunity for additional briefing and oral argument regarding the

19

implications of Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388 (2011), vis-à-vis adjudication of the merits

20

of Grounds 1, 2 and 6. The Court referenced Pinholster in this regard, directly or indirectly,

21

in its recent order addressing exhaustion issues as to these claims. See #57, at 7 n.10, 8 &

22

15-16.

23

The Court will allow an opportunity for – an exceedingly quick – supplemental briefing

24

cycle. The supplemental briefing cycle largely will coincide with the current briefing cycle

25

previously set on petitioner’s election under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198,

26

71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982), as to the relief to be requested regarding the unexhausted claims.

27

However, the Court is not able at this late juncture in this case to schedule an oral

28

argument in this matter. Following upon the disposition of the unexhausted claims, a likely

1

partial dismissal, the Court must move as expeditiously as possible to resolve the merits

2

issues on the numerous claims in this case, including evaluation of petitioner’s request for an

3

evidentiary hearing. If the Court were to order an evidentiary hearing on one or more claims,

4

it would need to be able to do so in time to resolve all issues in this case no later than

5

September 30, 2011. The Court simply does not have the time to divert from that effort to

6

prepare for and hold an oral argument. Counsel needs to say what counsel wishes to say

7

about the application of Pinholster to the claims in this case in the supplemental briefing.

8

The Court will not set a page limit for the length of the briefing, on the assumption that

9

the short deadlines will facilitate brevity. Counsel should note, however, that the Court does

10

not need extensive – and essentially immaterial – recitations of procedural minutiae such as

11

a recital of the preceding procedural history in the case complete with the specific filing date

12

of sundry filings. If the Court needs to review the procedural history of this case and

13

determine the dates of filings herein, it can do that more efficiently on the electronic docketing

14

system. Moreover, in the prior order, the Court summarized the pertinent state court

15

procedural history and fairly extensively summarized the underlying factual particulars on the

16

three grounds in question, particularly as to Ground 1. Counsel may write against the

17

backdrop of these summaries, subject to whatever correction or amplification is needed. In

18

short, counsel should just “cut to the chase” and present their arguments as to the application

19

of Pinholster to the adjudication of the merits of the claims.

20
21

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (#59) for additional briefing and
oral argument is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as further specified below.

22

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have seven (7) days from entry of this

23

order within which to file a supplemental brief addressing the application of the Pinholster

24

decision to the adjudication of Grounds 1, 2 and 6, that respondents shall have seven (7)

25

days from the filing date of petitioner’s brief (with electronic service) to file a supplemental

26

brief in response, and that petitioner shall have seven (7) days from the filing date of

27

respondents’ brief (with electronic service) to file a supplemental brief in reply.

28

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the request for oral argument is denied.
-2-

1

Extension of the deadlines established herein will be considered in only the most

2

extraordinary of circumstances.

3

scheduling conflicts with the demands of other cases in this District ordinarily should

4

be sought in the later-filed case.

5

Any necessary extensions of time based upon

DATED: July 6, 2011.

6
7
8
9

_________________________________
ROGER L. HUNT
United States District Judge

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