Bradford v. Baker

Filing 242

ORDER Denying 240 Motion to Extend Time and 241 Motion to Extend Time as MOOT. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents will have 45 jurisdictional issue as described above. The briefing of the amended motion to dismiss will be governed by th e Scheduling Order entered on April 11, 2024 ("Petitioner will have 60 days to file a response to the motion. Respondents will then have 30 days to file a reply."). ECF No. 229 . days from the date this Order is entered to file an amended motion to dismiss, addressing the Amended Motion to Dismiss due by 4/28/2025. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 3/13/2025. (For Distribution by law library.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JG)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

JULIUS BRADFORD,

Case No. 2:13-cv-01784-RFB-EJY

5

Petitioner,

ORDER

6

v.

7

JEREMY BEAN, et al.,

8

Respondents.

9
10

In this habeas corpus action, the pro se petitioner, Julius Bradford, filed a Third Amended

11

Habeas Petition on April 2, 2024. ECF No. 227. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on

12

December 2, 2024. ECF No. 238. Bradford was then to file a response to the motion to dismiss by

13

January 31, 2025, but he filed two Motions for Extension of Time, requesting that the due date for

14

his response be extended to March 25, 2025. ECF Nos. 240, 241.

15

The Court has examined the Motion to Dismiss and determined that it does not address an

16

issue regarding this Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate Bradford’s Third Amended Petition. That is,

17

the Motion to Dismiss does not address whether Bradford’s Third Amended Petition is barred by

18

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (regarding successive petitions) and the caselaw interpreting that provision,

19

Beaty v. Schriro, 554 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2009) and Balbuena v. Sullivan, 980 F.3d 619 (9th Cir.

20

2020). In other words, should Bradford’s Third Amended Petition be treated as a motion to amend,

21

and should the motion to amend be denied as a request to file a successive petition without the

22

authorization of the Court of Appeals, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)?

23

The Court will grant Respondents 45 days to amend their Motion to Dismiss to address

24

this issue. If Respondents determine that section 2244(b) does not apply under the

25

circumstances in this case, their amended motion may simply state as much and reassert the

26

arguments in their original Motion to Dismiss.

27
28

IT

IS

THEREFORE

ORDERED

that

Respondents

will

have

45

days from the date this Order is entered to file an amended motion to dismiss, addressing the
1

1

jurisdictional issue as described above. The briefing of the amended motion to dismiss will be

2

governed by the Scheduling Order entered on April 11, 2024 (“Petitioner will have 60 days … to

3

file a response to the motion. Respondents will then have 30 days to file a reply.”). ECF No. 229.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Extension of Time (ECF Nos.

5

240 and 241) are DENIED as moot.

6
7

DATED: March 13, 2025

8
9
10

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1