Moxley v. Neven et al

Filing 50

ORDER Granting 48 Motion to Dismiss Ground 7 without Prejudice. Answer due 8/20/2010. Replies due by 9/20/2010. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 7/19/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Download PDF
Moxley v. Neven et al Doc. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 vs. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Following upon petitioner's motion (#48) for partial dismissal in this represented habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which motion has not been opposed, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion (#48) is GRANTED and that Ground 7 is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents shall file an answer to the petition on or before August 20, 2010. If respondents wish to present any additional procedural defenses that have not been addressed during the show cause inquiry, respondents shall include same in the answer together with a response on the merits to all claims that remain before the Court following upon this order and the prior order (#42) of partial dismissal. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have until September 20, 2010, within which to file a reply to the answer. No extensions of time will be granted except in extraordinary circumstances, as the Court is seeking to resolve all aspects of this matter, if possible, by September 30, DWIGHT NEVEN, et al., Respondents. ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA JOHN TOLE MOXLEY, Petitioner, 2:07-cv-01123-RLH-GWF Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2010. Any extensions of time sought based upon scheduling conflicts with deadlines in other cases in this District should be sought in the earlier-filed case. DATED: July 19, 2010. _________________________________ ROGER L. HUNT Chief 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?