Smith v. Williams et al

Filing 2

ORDER. Catherine Cortez-Masto added as counsel for Respondents. Copy of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus provided to Respondents. Respondents answer due 10/30/2010. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/15/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Smith v. Williams et al

Doc. 2

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 Petitioner has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court has reviewed it pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and the court will serve it upon respondents for a response. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, as per prior agreement, that the clerk of court shall add Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (listed under Cortez) as counsel for respondents and shall make informal electronic service of this order and the petition upon respondents by directing a notice of electronic filing to her office. In addition, the clerk shall return to petitioner a copy of the petition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the petition was served to answer or otherwise respond to the petition. If respondents file and serve an answer, then they shall comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and then petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply. vs. BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al., Respondents. JONATHAN DAVID SMITH, Petitioner, Case No. 2:10-CV-01413-JCM-(LRL) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon respondents or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon the attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion or other document submitted for consideration by the court. Petitioner shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to the respondents or counsel for the respondents. The court may disregard any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the clerk, and any paper received by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the clerk that fails to include a certificate of service. DATED: September 15, 2010.

_________________________________ JAMES C. MAHAN United States District Judge

-2-