Warenback v. Neven et al

Filing 59

ORDER that Petitioner's four motions to file additional supplements to his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss are all Denied. Respondents' 52 Motion to Extend Time to Respondto the Motion to Supplement is Granted nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 5 6 DOUGLAS HARRY WARENBACK, v. 9 Petitioner, ORDER D.W. NEVEN, et al., Respondents. 7 8 Case No. 2:15-cv-01789-APG-VCF This pro se habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the court on petitioner Douglas Harry Warenback’s four motions to file sur-replies or supplements to 10 his opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 51, 54, 55, 57). 11 Respondents oppose (ECF Nos. 53, 56, 58). Warenback’s motions shall be denied. 12 This court has already granted Warenback leave to file a supplement to his 13 opposition to the motion to dismiss (see ECF Nos. 46, 47). The court allowed the 14 supplement in part because at that time respondents had not yet filed their reply in 15 support of the motion to dismiss. Respondents have now replied, and Warenback 16 persists in filing serial motions to supplement his opposition. Further, the court has 17 reviewed the proposed supplements, and they do not provide new support for 18 petitioner’s arguments. No further supplements to the briefing of the motion to dismiss 19 shall be permitted; the motion stands briefed and ready for this court’s decision. 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s four motions to file additional 21 supplements to his opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 51, 54, 55, 57) are all 22 DENIED. 23 24 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion to extend time to respond to the motion to supplement (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Dated: November 17, 2017. 26 27 ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 1

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?