Hall v. Director Department of Corrections

Filing 30

ORDER that respondents have 45 days to answer, or otherwise respond to, 18 amended petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have 45 days from service of the answer, or other response, to file a reply or oppostition. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/20/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7

CECIL LAMAR HALL,
8
Petitioner,

2:08-cv-01825-GMN-GWF

9
10

vs.

ORDER

11
12
13

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

14
15

This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court for initial review

16

under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the “Habeas Rules”) of the first

17

amended petition (#18) filed by the Federal Public Defender, following the completion of

18

discovery. Following upon said review, a response will be directed.

19

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that, taking into account the claims and issues

20

presented, respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from entry of this order within which

21

to answer, or otherwise respond to, the amended petition, including by motion to dismiss.

22

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, given the potential issues presented, and further

23

pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, respondents shall present their defenses in this case in

24

accordance with the following order:

25

(1)

first in a separate motion to dismiss without other defenses;

26
27
28

any exhaustion issues – if any – raised by respondents shall be raised

(2)

if no such issues are raised or following the resolution of same, all other
procedural defenses – if any – raised by respondents, including

1

timeliness and relation back, procedural default, and failure to state a

2

claim, to the extent applicable, shall be raised in a single additional

3

motion to dismiss; and

4

(3)

if an answer is filed, the answer shall address only merits defenses and

5

shall specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written

6

decision and state court record materials, if any, regarding each claim

7

within the argument as to that claim.

8

Respondents shall not be deemed to have waived any defenses by addressing the

9

issues in the order directed herein. The Court does not wish to entertain any procedural

10

defenses in this case in an answer that combines both procedural defenses and merits

11

defenses. The Court may modify the order in which issues and/or claims are considered as

12

the case proceeds forward.

13
14

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from service
of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition.

15

The Court has sought to take into account petitioner’s counsel’s maternity leave

16

in setting the deadlines herein. Any requests for extensions of time based upon

17

scheduling conflicts with other cases in this Court shall affirmatively reflect that the

18

other cases with conflicting scheduling requirements were filed prior to this case,

19

absent other extraordinary circumstances.

20

DATED this 20th day of April, 2011.

21
22
23

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-2-