Thomas v. Williams et al

Filing 28

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 26 petitioner's motion to reopen this action is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as the stay is lifted by this order, the Clerk REOPEN THE FILE in this action. See Order for details/deadlines. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/15/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Case 2:18-cv-00020-GMN-PAL Document 28 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

DESHAWN L. THOMAS,

Case No. 2:18-cv-00020-GMN-PAL

10

Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
BRIAN WILLIAMS, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

On August 7, 2018, the court granted a stay and administratively closed Deshawn

15

L. Thomas’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus action while he litigated his state petition

16

(ECF No. 21).

17

Thomas’ further state-court proceedings have concluded, and he has now

18

returned to this court seeking to reopen this case and requesting a scheduling order for

19

the filing of a second-amended petition (ECF No. 26). Respondents indicate that they

20

do not oppose the motion (ECF No. 27). Good cause appearing, this action is reopened.

21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to reopen this action (ECF

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

No. 26) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as the stay is lifted by this order, the Clerk
REOPEN THE FILE in this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner file a second-amended petition within
60 days of the date of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents file a response to the secondamended petition, including potentially by motion to dismiss, within 45 days of service
1

Case 2:18-cv-00020-GMN-PAL Document 28 Filed 10/15/20 Page 2 of 3

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

of the amended 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
should 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 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 should 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, should 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
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 has 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.

27
28
2

Case 2:18-cv-00020-GMN-PAL Document 28 Filed 10/15/20 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed
herein by either petitioner or respondents be filed with a separate index of exhibits
identifying the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed should be
identified by the number of the exhibit in the attachment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, at this time, the parties send courtesy copies of
any responsive pleading or motion and INDICES OF EXHIBITS ONLY to the Reno
Division of this court. Courtesy copies shall be mailed to the Clerk of Court, 400 S.
Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, and directed to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the
outside of the mailing address label. No further courtesy copies are required unless and
until requested by the court.

11
12

DATED: 15 October 2020.

13
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3