Lewis v. State of Nevada

Filing 21

ORDER directing Respondents to respond to ECF No. 7 First Amended Petition within 90 days. Petitioner's response due within 45 days thereafter. Any exhibits to be filed with separate index. Hard copies of any exhibits to be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in Reno. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 CAMILLE BYLO LEWIS, 10 Case No. 2:13-cv-00757-MMD-VCF Petitioner, ORDER v. 11 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 On August 21, 2015, this Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss this 15 counseled first-amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as time-barred (ECF 16 No. 14). Petitioner Camille Bylo Lewis filed a notice of appeal, and the Ninth Circuit Court 17 of Appeals granted a certificate of appealability (ECF Nos. 15, 17). On May 19, 2017, the 18 court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that Lewis is entitled to equitable 19 tolling (ECF No. 18). Accordingly, the Court now sets a briefing schedule. 20 It is therefore ordered that respondents will file a response to the petition, including 21 a motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of the date of this order, with any requests for 22 relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule 23 under the local rules. Any response filed must comply with the remaining provisions 24 below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 5. 25 It is further ordered that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this 26 case must be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, 27 the Court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in 28 seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. 1 Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to potential 2 waiver. Respondents must not file a response in this case that consolidates their 3 procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28 4 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents 5 do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they must do so within 6 the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they must specifically direct their 7 argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 8 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses, including 9 exhaustion, will be included with the merits in an answer. All procedural defenses, 10 including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss. 11 It is further ordered that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents must 12 specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state court 13 record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim. 14 It is further ordered that petitioner will have forty-five (45) days from service of the 15 answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition, with any other 16 requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing 17 schedule under the local rules. 18 It is further ordered that any additional state court record exhibits filed herein by 19 either petitioner or respondents must be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying 20 the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further must be identified 21 by the number or numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. Any additional exhibits filed 22 shall continue sequentially from the exhibits already filed in this case. 23 It is further ordered that the parties must send courtesy copies of all exhibits to the 24 Reno Division of this Court. Courtesy copies must be delivered to the Clerk of Court, 400 25 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, and directed to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the 26 outside of the address label. Additionally, in the future, all parties must provide courtesy 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 copies of any additional exhibits submitted to the Court in this case, in the manner 2 described above. 3 DATED THIS 19th day of June 2017. 4 5 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?