Elmajzoub v. Williams
Filing
3
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition 1 -1 on the respondents. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada Attorney General, as counsel for respondents.IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the petition, including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the petition, with any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local rules. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/26/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
SAID ELMAJZOUB,
10
Case No. 2:16-cv-02508-RFB-GWF
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
11
BRIAN WILLIAMS,
12
Respondent.
13
14
Petitioner Said Elmajzoub has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
15
and has paid the filing fee (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1). The court has reviewed the petition pursuant
16
to Habeas Rule 4, and it shall be docketed and served on respondents.
17
A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which
18
petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be
19
forever barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim.
20
§2254(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his
21
petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a
22
motion to amend his petition to add the claim.
23
24
25
26
See 28 U.S.C.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY
SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) on the respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada
Attorney General, as counsel for respondents.
27
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the petition,
28
including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
petition, with any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to the
normal briefing schedule under the local rules. Any response filed shall comply with the
remaining provisions below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 5.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents
in this case shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other
words, the court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either
in seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer.
Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to potential
waiver.
Respondents shall not file a response in this case that consolidates their
procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents
do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall do so within
the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically direct their
argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart,
406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005).
In short, no procedural defenses, including
exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an answer. All procedural defenses,
including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents
shall specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state
court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from
service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition,
with any other requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the
normal briefing schedule under the local rules.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed
herein by either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits
27
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
identifying the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall
be identified by the number of the exhibit in the attachment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties SHALL SEND courtesy copies of all
exhibits in this case to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, directed
to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the outside of the mailing address label. Additionally,
in the future, all parties shall provide courtesy copies of any additional exhibits submitted
to the court in this case, in the manner described above.
8
9
DATED: 26 February 2017.
10
11
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?