Torres v. Neven et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part 17 Motion. The time for petitioner to dispatch a reply to respondents' opposition to his 14 motion for appointment of counsel is extended up to and including twenty-one (21) days from entry of this order. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/29/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF, cc: Copies Mailed to P pursuant to Order - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 ANGEL TORRES, 8 Petitioner, 2:16-cv-00443-GMN-CWH 9 vs. 10 11 12 ORDER DWIGHT NEVEN, et al., Respondents. 13 14 This habeas matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s letter to the Magistrate 15 Judge, which has been docketed as a request or motion (ECF No. 17) for respondents to 16 forward documents to petitioner. 17 18 19 20 Petitioner asserts that he has not received the service copies of respondents’ filings in ECF Nos. 15 and 16. He seeks an opportunity to respond to both filings. To expedite matters, the Court will direct the Clerk to send petitioner additional copies of those filings. 21 Petitioner should note the following, however. 22 First, petitioner should not combine multiple different motions together in a single filing 23 as he did in his November 15, 2016, filing (ECF Nos. 13 and 14). Nor should he combine an 24 opposition, traverse, or reply with other filings as he did in that filing. Combined filings risk 25 confusion in docketing, which occurred in this instance. 26 Second, what petitioner filed within ECF Nos. 13 and 14 is not a traverse. Rule 5(e) 27 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now provides that a petitioner may file a reply 28 – not a traverse – to an answer. What petitioner filed, however, is not even a reply. A reply 1 is filed to an answer by the respondents, but respondents here instead filed a motion to 2 dismiss. Petitioner’s “traverse” thus instead in truth is a response or opposition to the motion 3 to dismiss. 4 Third, petitioner may not respond to respondents’ reply (ECF No. 15) to his opposition 5 to their motion to dismiss without leave of court first obtained. Basically, under the rules, the 6 party that files a motion gets the last word on the motion, in their reply. Local Rule LR 7-2 7 thus limits briefing on a motion to a supporting memorandum of points and authorities, a 8 response by the adverse party, and a reply by the movant. Local Rule LR 7-2(b) further 9 specifically provides in pertinent part: "Surreplies are not permitted without leave of court; 10 motions for leave to file a surreply are discouraged." If petitioner files a surreply without 11 leave, the filing may be stricken. In all events, respondents will get the last word on their 12 motion. 13 14 15 16 Fourth, petitioner may file a reply, however, to respondents’ opposition to his motion for appointment of counsel. The Court will extend petitioner’s time to file a reply. Fifth, petitioner must present all requests for relief by motion rather than by letter. Requests presented in letters may be disregarded by the Court and Clerk. 17 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 17) for respondents 18 to forward documents to petitioner is GRANTED IN PART to the extent consistent with the 19 remaining provisions of this order. 20 21 IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall SEND petitioner another copy of ECF Nos. 15 and 16. 22 IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall correct the docket to reflect that 23 petitioner’s November 15, 2016, filing includes a response to respondents’ motion (ECF No. 24 10) to dismiss and that the Clerk further shall review the correctness of the docket entry for 25 ECF No. 15.1 26 //// 27 28 1 The entry perhaps may need to cross-reference to ECF No. 10 rather than ECF No. 13. -2- 1 IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the time for petitioner to dispatch a reply to 2 respondents’ opposition to his motion for appointment of counsel is extended up to and 3 including twenty-one (21) days from entry of this order. 4 DATED: December 29, 2016 5 6 7 _________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court 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?