Adkisson v. Neven et al

Filing 115

ORDER Denying 101 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Claim and 102 Motion to Compel. The Court Further GRANTS nunc pro tunc 103 and 105 Motions to Extend Time. The Court Further Orders that respondents file a response to 109 Second MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Petition within 21 days. Petitioner may file a reply within 14 days of response filing. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/25/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) Modified text on 1/26/2022 (SLD).

Case 2:14-cv-01934-APG-DJA Document 115 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MICHAEL DEAN ADKISSON,
4

Petitioner

5 v.

Case No.: 2:14-cv-01934-APG-CWH
ORDER

6 D.W. NEVEN, et al.,
7

Respondents

8
9

Before the court are several motions by petitioner Michael Dean Adkisson. The Federal

10 Public Defender (FPD) previously represented Adkisson in this case, and the counseled, second11 amended petition is fully briefed on the merits (see ECF Nos. 28, 49, 60). The court granted a
12 second stay in this case in November 2019, while Adkisson, represented by the FPD, returned to
13 state court (ECF No. 91). Contemporaneously with a motion to reopen the case, the FPD moved
14 to withdraw from the case, explaining that he and Adkisson had a fundamental disagreement
15 about how to proceed and that there had been an irrevocable breakdown of the attorney-client
16 relationship that resulted in an actual conflict of interest (ECF No. 96). The FPD indicated that
17 Adkisson urged him to file another amended petition, but counsel explained his reasons for not
18 further amending the petition. The court granted the motion to withdraw (ECF No. 99).
19

Adkisson, now proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for discovery (ECF No. 102). Under

20 the Rules Governing § 2254 cases, “A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct
21 discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.” He
22 seeks district attorney’s office records that allegedly exist regarding 2004 plea negotiations. The
23 request relates to a claim that has been fully briefed on the merits since October 2017 (see ECF

Case 2:14-cv-01934-APG-DJA Document 115 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 2

1 Nos. 49, 60). Adkisson has not demonstrated good cause for this request at this late date, and the
2 motion is denied.
3

Adkisson has also filed a motion for leave to file a third-amended petition (ECF No.

4 109). 1 Adkisson seeks to add one ground – the claim he recently returned to state court to litigate
5 unsuccessfully. With the second-amended petition long fully briefed, the court is unlikely to
6 grant leave to add another claim for relief. However, the court directs respondents to respond to
7 the motion for leave.
8

I THEREFORE ORDER that petitioner’s first motion for leave to file supplemental claim

9 (ECF No. 101) is DENIED.
10

I FURTHER ORDER that petitioner’s motion for discovery (ECF No. 102) is DENIED.

11

I FURTHER ORDER that, within 21 days of the date of this order, respondents file a

12 response to petitioner’s second motion for leave to file an amended petition at ECF No. 109.
13

I FURTHER ORDER that petitioner file a reply in support of his motion, if any, within

14 14 days of service of respondents’ response.
15

I FURTHER ORDER that petitioner’s two motions for extension of time to file the

16 motion for leave to file an amended petition (ECF Nos. 103 and 105) are both GRANTED nunc
17 pro tunc.
18
19

Dated: January 25, 2022

20
21

_________________________________
U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon

22
23

1

Adkisson originally filed a motion for leave to file supplemental claim, without attaching any
proposed claim or amended petition (ECF No. 101). This motion is denied.
2