Peters v. Neven et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Seal. Respondents shall file a response to the amended petition 8 , including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of the date of this order, with any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local rules. Any response filed shall comply with the remaining provisions below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 4. Petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition, with any other requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local rules. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/16/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10

WILSON O. PETERS,

11

Petitioner,

12

vs.

13

Case No. 2:14-cv-01055-RFB-VCF

DWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,

14

ORDER

Respondents.

15
16
17

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, through

18

counsel, has now filed an amended petition (#8). Petitioner has also filed a motion to seal certain

19

exhibits (#13), and respondents do not oppose (#14). Good cause appearing, petitioner’s motion is

20

granted.

21

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to seal exhibits (#13) is GRANTED.

22

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the amended petition

23

(#8), including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of the date of this order, with

24

any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule

25

under the local rules. Any response filed shall comply with the remaining provisions below, which

26

are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 4.

27

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this case

28

shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, the court does not

1

wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in seriatum fashion in multiple successive

2

motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to

3

dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that

4

consolidates their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28

5

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents do seek

6

dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall do so within the single motion to

7

dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically direct their argument to the standard for

8

dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In

9

short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an answer.

10

All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss.

11

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents shall

12

specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state court record

13

materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response to the respective claim.

14

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of the

15

answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition, with any other requests for

16

relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local

17

rules.

18

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed herein by

19

either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits

20

by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or

21

numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits

22

shall be forwarded – for this case – to the staff attorneys in Reno.

23

Dated: January 16, 2015.

24
25
26

________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
-2-