Elliot v. Williams et al

Filing 53

ORDER that Respondents shall file a response to 50 Motion for Release on Personal Recognizance or Bail, or any motion to stay the court's 9/23/11 order, no later than 10/17/11. Petitioner shall file a response to any motions no later than 10/19/11. The Court will entertain no motions for extension of time regarding the above briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/13/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

CLARENCE H. ELLIOT,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/

2:08-cv-00829-GMN-RJJ
ORDER

13
14

This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by a

15

Nevada state prisoner who is represented by counsel. On September 23, 2011, the Court issued an

16

order granting the habeas petition and requiring, among other things, petitioner’s release from

17

custody within thirty days unless the State files a written election to retry petitioner. (ECF No. 45.)

18

On October 12, 2011, the State filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s order. (ECF No. 49.) On

19

October 13, 2011, petitioner filed a motion for release on personal recognizance or bail pending

20

review of the Court’s decision ordering his release. (ECF No. 50.) Accordingly, the Court sets an

21

abbreviated briefing schedule to address whether petitioner should be released pending disposition of

22

the appeal in this matter.

23

Respondents shall file a response, and any motion to stay the court’s September 23, 2011

24

order, no later than October 17, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. Petitioner shall file a response to any motion to

25

stay no later than October 19, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. There shall be no replies; the parties must raise all

26

arguments concerning petitioner’s custody status in their motions and responses. Additionally, the

1
2
3
4

parties shall address the following factors in their papers:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
(4) where the public interest lies.

5

Haggard v. Curry, 631 F.3d 931, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770,

6

776 (1987)). Due to the unique time constraints in this matter, the Court will entertain no motions

7

for extension of time regarding the above briefing schedule.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2011.

9
10
11
12

Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2