Downing v. Attorney General State of Nevada et al
Filing
8
ORDER that 7 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Dismissal Order and Clerk's Judgment 5 and 6 are SET ASIDE. The Clerk shall reopen this action, file and electronically serve the petition upon the respondents who will have 45 days from entry of this order to answer/respond. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 8/6/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
CURTIS L. DOWNING,
6
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:13-cv-01576-JAD-VCF
7
vs.
8
9
ORDER
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
Respondents.
10
11
12
This is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by a
13
Nevada state prisoner. By order filed January 14, 2014, the Court dismissed this action because it
14
appeared that petitioner failed to obey the Court’s order to submit the filing fee. (Doc. 5).
15
Judgment was entered on January 15, 2014. (Doc. 6).
16
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
17
Civil Procedure. (Doc. 7). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) the court may relieve a party from a final
18
judgment or order for the following reasons:
19
20
21
22
23
24
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence, that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6)
any other reason that justifies relief.
In the instant case, on October 23, 2013, the Court denied petitioner’s application to proceed
25
in forma pauperis and directed petitioner to pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action. (Doc. 2).
26
Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 3). On November 26,
27
2013, the Court granted petitioner an additional thirty days in which to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 4).
28
Petitioner’s $5.00 filing fee was due on December 26, 2013. Because it appeared that petitioner
1
failed to obey the Court’s order directing payment of the filing fee, the Court dismissed this action
2
by order filed January 15, 2014. (Doc. 5).
3
Although the Court’s docket does not reflect the receipt of payment of the filing fee,
4
petitioner contends in his motion for reconsideration that on November 19, 2013, he filled out the
5
proper paperwork to have the prison issue a check to the Clerk of this Court for $5.00. Petitioner
6
has attached to his motion a copy of his inmate account statement that supports his contention and
7
confirms that a $5.00 payment was collected from his inmate account to satisfy the payment of the
8
$5.00 filing fee in this action. (Doc. 7, at p. 4). The Court cannot explain why the Clerk of Court
9
never received or processed the filing fee submitted by petitioner. Under the circumstances, the
10
Court deems that petitioner has paid the filing fee, and petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is
11
granted.
12
The Court has reviewed the habeas petition in the instant action. Although petitioner has
13
filed other habeas actions in this Court, those actions dealt with petitioner’s state court convictions.
14
In the instant petition, petitioner challenges the result of a prison disciplinary hearing at which he
15
alleges a denial of due process that affected his ultimate duration of incarceration. Thus, the petition
16
is not successive, and it shall be served on respondents. Respondents shall file a response to the
17
petition, as set forth at the conclusion of this order.
18
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 7) is
19
GRANTED. The dismissal order and judgment in this action (Docs. 5 & 6) are SET ASIDE.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL REOPEN this action.
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall FILE and
22
ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (Doc. 1-1) upon the respondents.
23
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 45 days from entry of this order
24
to answer or otherwise respond to the petition. In their answer or other response, respondents shall
25
address all claims presented in the petition. Respondents shall raise all potential affirmative
26
defenses in the initial responsive pleading, including lack of exhaustion and procedural default.
27
Successive motions to dismiss will not be entertained. If an answer is filed, respondents shall
28
comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States
-2-
1
District Courts under 28 U.S.C. §2254. If an answer is filed, petitioner shall have 45 days from the
2
date of service of the answer to file a reply.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any state court record exhibits filed by respondents shall
4
be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The hard copy
5
of all state court record exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to the staff attorneys in the Reno
6
Division of the Clerk of Court.
7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon the Attorney
8
General of the State of Nevada a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document he submits for
9
consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a
10
certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to the Attorney
11
General. The Court may disregard any paper that does not include a certificate of service. After
12
respondents appear in this action, petitioner shall make such service upon the particular Deputy
13
Attorney General assigned to the case.
14
Dated this 6th day of August, 2014.
15
16
17
NITED STATES DISTRIC
TE
TE ST T
T
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?