Rodriguez v. McDaniels et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying Petitioner's 36 and 40 Motions for lack of clarity. The Court will entertain no future motions in this case. The Clerk shall send to petitioner copies of 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 and 28 . Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/25/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10

DARIO RODRIGUEZ,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00629-JCM-VCF
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

11
12
13

E.K. McDANIEL, et al.,
Respondents.

14
15

This is a habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which this court

16

entered a final judgment against the petitioner on May 3, 2016. ECF No. 4. On

17

November 22, 2016, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals denied a certificate of appealability.

18

ECF No. 14. On April 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals denied petitioner’s petition

19

for writ of mandamus. ECF No. 34.

20

Petitioner continues to file motions and send letters to the court requesting

21

copies of documents and/or claiming that he was not notified of orders entered in this

22

case. With respect to the copy requests, it is unclear, in most instances, what specific

23

documents he is requesting. With respect to notification, a review of the docket

24

indicates that every order entered in this case was mailed to petitioner’s address of

25

record at the time. Even so, the court directs the Clerk to send petitioner copies of the

26
27
28

1

documents entered at ECF Nos. 16-21, 23-26 and 28. The Clerk shall also send

2

petitioner a copy of the mail receipt for the order entered on July 3, 2017 (ECF No. 21).

3

Petitioner’s pending motions (ECF No. 36, 40) are denied for lack of clarity. The

4

court will entertain no future motions in this case. See ECF Nos. 21/31.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

September 25, 2020.
DATED THIS ___ day of ________, 2020.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2