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)

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-