Guy v. Baker

Filing 39

ORDER Denying 20 Motion for Compliance with Scheduling Order. Answer or Response to 17 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be filed within 60 days. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/16/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11

CURTIS GUY,

12
13
14

Case No. 2:11-cv-01809-MMD-RJJ
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18

In this capital habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Curtis Guy, filed an amended
habeas petition on May 16, 2012 (dkt. no. 17).

19

On May 25, 2012, respondents filed a “Motion for Compliance with Scheduling

20

Order” (dkt. no. 20), arguing that Guy did not, in the amended petition, provide adequate

21

information regarding his exhaustion of his claims in state court. In the motion for

22

compliance, respondents sought an order of the Court requiring Guy to file a

23

supplemental statement providing more detailed information regarding his exhaustion of

24

claims in state court.

25

On November 9, 2012, Guy filed an opposition to the motion for compliance (dkt.

26

no. 37). In the opposition, Guy argued that the motion for compliance should be denied.

27

Guy also set forth, in the opposition, information regarding his exhaustion of each of his

28

claims in state court. See Opposition to Motion (dkt. no. 37), pp. 3-8.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

On November 15, 2012, respondents filed a reply with respect to their motion for
compliance (dkt. no. 38). In the one-paragraph reply, respondents state:
In his opposition, Guy argues that this Court’s order requiring him to
provide specific details about whether his claims are exhausted “places an
improper burden on Petitioner to plead an affirmative defense.” Docket
#37 at 3. However, notwithstanding this argument, Guy presents
additional information concerning the procedural status of the claims
raised in his amended federal petition. See id. at 3-8. Respondents
therefore consider the issue resolved, and request that this Court reset its
briefing schedule in anticipation of Respondents filing a motion to dismiss
or other responsive pleading.
Reply (dkt. no. 38), pp. 1-2.

9

Therefore, as respondents consider the issue resolved by Guy’s response to

10

their motion for compliance, the Court will deny that motion, as moot, and will set a

11

schedule for further response by respondents to the amended habeas petition.

12
13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ Motion for Compliance with
Scheduling Order (dkt. no. 20) is DENIED.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall, within 60 days after the entry

15

of this order, file and serve an answer or other response to the petitioner’s amended

16

petition for writ of habeas corpus (dkt. no. 17).

17
18

DATED THIS 16th day of November 2012.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE