Wilcock v. Gentry et al

Filing 11

SCHEDULING ORDER that Hoffman must meet with Wilock as soon as reasonably possible, if counsel has not already done so. Wilcock has until April 11, 2018, to FILE and SERVE on respondents an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (see order for details). FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must SEND courtesy copies of all exhibits preexisting and newly added to this court's RENO division. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Patrick Edward Wilcock,

2:17-cv-02101-JAD-CWH

5

Petitioner

Scheduling Order

6

v.

7

Jo Gentry, et al.,

8

Respondents

9
10

On December 11, 2017, I granted then-pro se petitioner Patrick Wilock’s motion for

11

appointment of counsel.1 Megan Hoffman of the Federal Public Defender’s Office has now

12

appeared on behalf of Wilcock,2 so I take this opportunity to set the schedule for further

13

proceedings.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hoffman must meet with Wilock as soon

15

as reasonably possible, if counsel has not already done so, to: (a) review the procedures

16

applicable in cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; (b) discuss and explore with Wilock, as fully as

17

possible, the potential grounds for habeas corpus relief in his case; and (c) advise Wilcock that

18

all possible grounds for habeas corpus relief must be raised at this time in this action and that the

19

failure to do so will likely result in any omitted grounds being barred from future review.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wilcock has until April 11, 2018, to FILE and

21

SERVE on respondents an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus that includes all

22

known grounds for relief (both exhausted and unexhausted).

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents will have 45 days after service of an

24

amended petition to answer or otherwise respond to it. If Wilcock does not file an amended

25

petition, respondents will have until May 28, 2018, to answer or otherwise respond to it. Any

26
27
28

1

ECF No. 7.

2

ECF No. 10.

1

response filed must comply with Habeas Rule 5 as outlined below.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this

3

case must be raised together in a single, consolidated motion to dismiss. Successive motions to

4

dismiss will not be entertained. Procedural defenses omitted from the motion to dismiss may be

5

waived. Respondents may not file a response that consolidates their procedural defenses, if any,

6

with their response on the merits, except as allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) regarding any

7

unexhausted claims that clearly lack merit. If respondents do seek dismissal of unexhausted

8

claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they must do so within the single motion to dismiss, not in the

9

answer; and (b) they must specifically direct their argument to the standard for dismissal under §

10

2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart.3 In short, no procedural defenses, including

11

exhaustion, may be included in an answer on the merits. All procedural defenses, including

12

exhaustion, must instead be raised in a single motion to dismiss.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents must

14

specifically cite to and address the applicable state-court written decision and state-court-record

15

materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wilcock will have 45 days from service of the answer,

17

motion to dismiss, or other response to reply. Any other motions for relief will be governed by

18

the local rules’ briefing schedule.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must file any state-court-record exhibits

20

with an index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The CM/ECF attachments

21

that are filed must also be identified by the number or letter of the exhibit in the attachment.

22
23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties must SEND courtesy copies of all
exhibits—preexisting and newly added—to this court’s RENO division. Courtesy copies

24
25
26
27
28

3

Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2005).
2

1

must be mailed to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, and directed to

2

the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the mailing address label.

3

DATED: January 10, 2018.

4

_______________________________
____________________
__ ______
_ __
_ __
__
___
Jennifer A. Dorsey
nnifer A Dorsey
fe
fe
e
United States District Judge
ited States
d tate
t Judge
d

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3