Flores v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 77

ORDER granting 75 Motion to Lift Stay of Case. The clerk is directed to reopen this action. Respondents shall respond to the 71 Fourth Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus within 60 days and petitioner may reply within 30 days of the answer. See Order for additional detail. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/14/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

JESUS I. FLORES,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01629-GMN-VCF
ORDER

v.
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,
Respondents.

16
17

This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court stayed the action while

18

petitioner Jesus I. Flores exhausted his state-court remedies. ECF No. 70. Petitioner now has

19

filed a motion to reopen, and respondents do not oppose the motion. ECF No. 75, 76. The court

20

will grant the motion.

21
22

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion to reopen (ECF No. 75) is
GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to lift the stay and to reopen this action.

23

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents must file a response to the fourth amended

24

petition (ECF No. 71), including potentially by motion to dismiss, within 60 days of entry of this

25

order and that petitioner may file a reply within 30 days of service of an answer. The response

26

and reply time to any motion filed by either party, including a motion filed in lieu of a pleading,

27

will be governed instead by Local Rule LR 7-2(b).

28
1

1

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents to the

2

petition must be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, the

3

court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in serial fashion in

4

multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. Procedural defenses omitted

5

from such motion to dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. Respondents must not file a

6

response in this case that consolidates their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the

7

merits, except pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking

8

merit. If respondents do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they must

9

do so within the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they must specifically direct

10

their argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406

11

F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, may be

12

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

13

must be raised by motion to dismiss.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, notwithstanding Local Rule LR IC 2-2(g), paper copies

18

of any electronically filed exhibits need not be provided to chambers or to the staff attorney,

19

unless later directed by the court.

20

DATED: April 14, 2021

21

______________________________
GLORIA M. NAVARRO
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2