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)
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?