Edwards v. Williams et al

Filing 20

SCHEDULING ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents have until 9/8/2020, to answer or otherwise respond to 19 the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, including any motion to dismiss. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/9/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 JAREAL EDWARDS, 5 Case No. 2:15-cv-00673-JAD-NJK Petitioner, v. 6 Scheduling Order WARDEN HOWELL, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 On September 28, 2017, I administratively closed this action while Petitioner Jareal 10 Edwards exhausted his unexhausted claims in state court. 1 Edwards completed his state-court 11 proceedings and filed a new habeas petition. 2 I construed the new petition as a request to reopen 12 this habeas case and file an amended petition. 3 As I instructed, the Clerk of Court reopened this 13 case, filed the new petition in this case, and designated it as Edwards’s Second Amended Petition 14 for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 4 The following scheduling order will now govern this habeas matter: 15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Respondents have until September 8, 2020, to answer or otherwise respond to the 17 Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 19), including any 18 motion to dismiss. 19 2. Petitioner will then have 60 days from the date of service of an answer to file a reply 20 brief. However, the response and reply time to any motion filed by either party, 21 including a motion filed instead of a pleading, will be governed by Local Rule 7-2(b). 22 3. Any procedural defenses that respondents raise to the second amended petition must 23 be raised together in a single, consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, the 24 court does not wish to address any procedural defenses either in seriatim fashion in 25 1 26 ECF No. 15. 2 See Case No. 2:20-cv-00520-JAD-DJA. 27 3 ECF No. 18. 28 4 ECF No. 19. 1 1 multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. Procedural 2 defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. 3 4. Respondents may not file a response in this case that consolidates their procedural 4 defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except as permitted by 28 U.S.C. 5 § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents do 6 seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2), they must do so within the 7 single motion to dismiss, not in the answer, and specifically direct their argument to 8 the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 9 614, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, 10 will be included with the merits in an answer. All procedural defenses, including 11 exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss. 12 5. In any answer filed on the merits, respondents must specifically cite to and address 13 the applicable state-court written decision and state-court record materials, if any, 14 regarding each claim within the response as to that claim. 15 16 17 6. Respondents must file a set of state court exhibits relevant to the response to the second amended petition. Those exhibits must be filed chronologically. 7. Any state-court record or exhibits must be filed in accordance with LR IA 10-3 and 18 LR IC 2-2 and include a separate index identifying each additional exhibit by number 19 or letter. The index must be filed in CM/ECF’s document-upload screen as the base 20 document to receive the base docket number (e.g., ECF No. 10). Each exhibit will 21 then be filed as an “attachment” to the base document—the index—to receive a 22 sequenced sub-docket number (e.g., Exhibit 1 (ECF No. 10-1), Exhibit 2 (ECF 23 No. 10-2), Exhibit 3 (ECF No. 10-3), and so forth). The purpose of this provision is 24 to allow this court and any reviewing court to quickly determine from the face of the 25 electronic docket sheet which numbered exhibits are filed in which attachments. If 26 the exhibits will span more than one filing, the base document in each successive 27 filing must be either a copy of the index or volume cover page. See LR IC 2- 28 2(a)(3)(A). 2 1 8. For this case, respondents are not required to deliver a paper copy of any exhibits 2 to the court. 3 Dated: July 9, 2020 4 U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?