Green v. LeGrand et al

Filing 71

ORDER. Respondents have until December 6, 2021, to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 69 ). Petitioner will then have 60 days from the date of service of an answer to file a reply brief. Any procedural defenses Respondents raise in this case must be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 10/7/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

DUSHON NICHALOS GREEN,

4
5
6

v.

Case No. 2:14-cv-01388-APG-NJK

Petitioner,

ORDER

WARDEN GARRETT, et al.,
Respondents.

7
8

On May 15, 2017, this case was administratively closed while Petitioner Dushon Nichalos

9

Green exhausted his unexhausted claims in state court. ECF No. 62. Green completed his state-

10

court proceedings and filed a new federal habeas petition. 1 The court construed the new federal

11

habeas petition as a request to reopen this habeas case and file an amended petition. ECF No. 68.

12

As instructed, the Clerk of Court reopened this case, filed the new federal habeas petition in this

13

case, and designated it as Green’s first amended petition. ECF No. 69.

14

I THEREFORE ORDER:

15

1. Respondents have until December 6, 2021, to answer or otherwise respond to the first

16

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 69), including any motion to dismiss.

17

2. Petitioner will then have 60 days from the date of service of an answer to file a reply brief.

18

However, the response and reply time to any motion filed by either party, including a

19

motion filed instead of a pleading, will be governed by Local Rule 7-2(b).

20

3. Any procedural defenses Respondents raise in this case must be raised together in a single

21

consolidated motion to dismiss. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss

22

may be subject to waiver. Respondents will not file a response in this case that consolidates

23

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

24

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

25

seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2), they must do so within the single

26

motion to dismiss, not in the answer, and specifically direct their argument to the standard

27
28

1

See Green v. Garrett, Case No. 3:21-cv-00078-MMD-CLB.

1

1

for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) as set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623–24

2

(9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, will be included

3

with the merits in an answer. All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must

4

be raised by motion to dismiss.

5

4. In any answer filed on the merits, Respondents must specifically cite to and address the

6

applicable state court written decision and state court record materials, if any, regarding

7

each claim within the response as to that claim.

8
9
10

5. Respondents must file the state court exhibits relevant to their response to the petition, in
chronological order.
6. All state court records and exhibits must be filed in accordance with LR IA 10-3, LR IC

11

2-2, and LSR 3-3, and include a separate index identifying each exhibit by number or

12

letter. The index must be filed in CM/ECF’s document upload screen as the base

13

document to receive the base docket number (e.g., ECF No. 10). Each exhibit must

14

then be filed as “attachments” to the base document—the index—to receive a

15

sequenced sub-docket number (e.g., Exhibit A (ECF No. 10-1), Exhibit B (ECF No.

16

10-2), Exhibit C (ECF No. 10-3), and so forth). If the exhibits will span more than one

17

filing, the base document in each successive filing must be either a copy of the index or

18

volume cover page. See LR IC 2-2(a)(3)(A).

19

7. Notwithstanding LR IC 2-2(g), paper copies of any electronically filed exhibits—for this

20

case—need not be provided to chambers or to the staff attorney, unless later directed by

21

the court.

22

Dated: October 7, 2021

23

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2