Washington v. Gentry et al
ORDER that respondents have until October 30, 2017, to appearin this action and to answer or otherwise respond to the amended petition. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 8/31/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF, cc: Atty General NV and 6 - JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Larry James Washington,
Jo Gentry, et al.,
This action is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by Nevada prisoner Larry James
Washington. Washington submitted his petition for filing on June 5, 2017 (ECF No. 1-1). He
paid the filing fee for the action on August 1, 2017 (ECF No. 5). And, on August 28, 2017,
Washington filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 6).
The Court has reviewed Washington’s amended petition as required by Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and determines that it
merits service upon respondents and a response by respondents.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall add Adam Paul
Laxalt, Attorney General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall electronically serve upon
respondents a copy of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 6) and a copy of
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents have until October 30, 2017, to appear
in this action and to answer or otherwise respond to the amended petition. If respondents file an
answer, petitioner will have 60 days from the date on which the answer is served on him to file a
reply. If respondents file a motion to dismiss, petitioner will have 60 days from the date on
which the motion is served on him to file a response to the motion to dismiss, and respondents
will then have 30 days to file a reply in support of the motion.
DATED: August 31, 2017
Jennifer A. Dorsey
fer A Dorsey
United States District Judge
d St t Di t i t J d
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?