Gaon v. State of Nevada
Filing
2
ORDER - Clerk shall add AG as counsel for respondents. Clerk shall e-serve upon respondents a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1 ), and a copy of this order. (E-service 8/22/2017; petition via NEF regeneration.) Respondents shall appear in this action by 9/11/2017. Answer/response to the petition due by 10/6/2017. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/22/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
10
11
FRANCIS GAON,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02209-MMD-VCF
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
12
13
SHERIFF JOSEPH LOMBARDO,
Respondent.
14
15
16
This case is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
17
by Francis Gaon. Gaon is apparently awaiting trial on a criminal charge in Clark County,
18
Nevada. Gaon, who is represented by counsel, filed his habeas corpus petition and paid
19
the filing fee for this action on August 18, 2017 (ECF No. 1).
20
21
22
23
The Court has reviewed Gaon’s habeas petition, and determines that it merits
service upon the respondents.
It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of the Court will add Adam Paul Laxalt,
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents.
24
It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court will electronically serve upon
25
respondents a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), and a copy of
26
this order.
27
28
It is further ordered that respondents will have twenty (20) days from the date on
which the petition is served upon them to appear in this action.
1
It is further ordered that respondents will have forty-five (45) days from the date
2
on which the petition is served upon them to file an answer or other response to the
3
petition.
4
DATED THIS 22nd day of August 2017.
5
6
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?