Fernandez v. Cox et al

Filing 49

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 35 is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motions to Extend Prison Copywork Limit 36 , 39 are DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Res pondents' Motion for Reconsideration 40 is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Review Questions of Statutory Construction De Novo 42 is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Leave of Court to file a Motion for Discovery 46 is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ground 6 of the Amended Petition 21 is DISMISSED IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 45 days from the date of entry of this order to file and serve an answer. (See order for details.) Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

RENE F. FERNANDEZ,

10

Petitioner,

Case No. 2:13-cv-02158-GMN-VCF
ORDER

11

vs.

12

JAMES GREG COX, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Multiple motions are before the court. First is respondents’ motion for reconsideration (#40)

16

of the court’s order (#38) denying respondents’ motion to dismiss (#30). Respondents ask for

17

reconsideration of the court’s decision that the amended petition is timely. The court will not. Even

18

though the original petition was not signed, Rule 3(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in

19

the United States District Courts requires the clerk of the court to accept such a document for filing.

20

Respondents also ask for reconsideration of the decision that petitioner can proceed with both

21

ground 3 and ground 7 of the amended petition even though the facts of each ground are

22

contradictory. The court will not. The Nevada Supreme Court was able to evaluate both of these

23

claims without falling into an infinite loop of indecision. See Ex. 9, at 3-4. This court is confident

24

it can evaluate the reasonableness of the Nevada Supreme Court’s determinations.

25

Petitioner has filed another motion for appointment of counsel (#35). Nothing would lead

26

the court to depart from its denial of petitioner’s earlier motion, and the court denies this motion.

27

Petitioner has filed a motion to review questions of statutory construction de novo (#42).

28

This is another attempt to re-litigate the dismissal of ground 6, and the court denies it. To avoid any

1

confusion caused by the filing of the amended petition (#21), which was just to add a signature, the

2

court will dismiss ground 6 of the amended petition.

3

Petitioner has filed a motion for leave of court to file a motion for discovery (#46).

4

Petitioner seeks to have copies of the transcripts of proceedings. This is not a matter for discovery.

5

Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires

6

the respondents to include the transcripts that respondents consider relevant for the disposition of

7

the petition and to state what other transcripts are available. If the court needs transcripts that

8

respondents did not provide with their answer, then the court can order respondents to provide those

9

transcripts.

10

Petitioner has filed two motions to extend prison copywork limit (#36, #39). Administrative

11

Regulation 722.04(3) provides inmates 5 pages of carbon paper per month. After this order, the

12

only two documents that need to be filed are respondents’ answer to the amended petition and

13

petitioner’s reply to the answer. The allotment of carbon paper should be sufficient for petitioner to

14

make the necessary copies of the reply to the answer.

15
16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (#35) is
DENIED.

17
18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motions to extend prison copywork limit
(#36, #39) are DENIED.

19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for reconsideration (#40) is
DENIED.

21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to review questions of statutory
construction de novo (#42) is DENIED.

23
24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave of court to file a motion for
discovery (#46) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ground 6 of the amended petition (#21) is DISMISSED.

25
26

///

27

///

28

///
-2-

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date

2

of entry of this order to file and serve an answer, which shall comply with Rule 5 of the Rules

3

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner shall have forty-five

4

(45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply.

5

DATED: March 22, 2016

6
7

_________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-