BILLY RAY RILEY V. RENEE BAKER, ET AL.
Filing
238
ORDERED that petitioner's second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 73 ) is GRANTED, with respect to Ground 8 of his second amended petition. The respondents shall, within 180 days from the date of this order, release petition er from custody on his conviction and sentence for first degree murder, unless, within 60 days from the date of this order, the respondents file in this case a written notice of the State's election to retry petitioner on the murder charge, and, within 180 days from the date of this order, proceedings toward the new trial on the murder charge are initiated. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/19/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
BILLY RAY RILEY,
9
Petitioner,
10
vs.
11
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:01-cv-0096-RCJ-VPC
ORDER
/
14
15
In this capital habeas corpus action, this court denied Billy Ray Riley’s second amended habeas
16
petition on September 20, 2010, and judgment was entered (ECF Nos. 198, 199), and, then, on
17
February 4, 2011, the court denied Riley’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 206). Riley appealed,
18
and on May 15, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded the case to this court,
19
with instructions for this court to grant Riley habeas corpus relief with respect to his murder conviction.
20
See Riley v. McDaniel, 786 F.3d 719 (2015). The court of appeals denied rehearing and rehearing
21
en banc on June 29, 2015 (ECF No. 224). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on
22
March 21, 2016. See Baker v. Riley, 136 S.Ct. 1450 (2016). The court of appeals issued its mandate
23
on April 26, 2016 (ECF No. 229). On May 10, 2016, this court ordered the court of appeals’ mandate
24
spread upon the record (ECF No. 231).
25
26
1
On May 25, 2016, this court denied a “Motion for Rule 60(B) Relief from Judgment” (ECF
2
No. 232) filed by respondents, and ordered the parties to meet and confer, and file briefing, regarding
3
their proposals for the form of an order granting Riley relief as ordered by the court of appeals.
4
See Order entered May 25, 2016 (ECF No. 234). On June 24, 2016, Riley filed a proposed order (ECF
5
No. 235). On July 5, 2016, respondents filed their response to Riley’s proposed order, objecting only
6
to Riley’s characterization of the claim upon which the court of appeals ordered him granted relief. See
7
Objections to Proposed Order (ECF No. 236). Riley replied on July 12, 2016 (ECF No. 237), suggesting
8
that the language found objectionable by respondents could be removed from the proposed order.
9
10
11
12
13
The court of appeals’ order, reversing the judgment of this court and remanding the case with
instructions to enter a new judgment granting Riley a writ of habeas corpus, states:
The judgment of the district court is reversed. This case is remanded with
instructions to grant the writ unless the State of Nevada elects to pursue a new trial within
a reasonable amount of time.
Riley, 786 F.3d at 727.
14
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s second amended petition for writ of habeas
15
corpus (ECF No. 73) is GRANTED, with respect to Ground 8 of his second amended petition. The
16
respondents shall, within 180 days from the date of this order, release petitioner from custody on his
17
conviction and sentence for first degree murder, unless, within 60 days from the date of this order, the
18
respondents file in this case a written notice of the State’s election to retry petitioner on the murder
19
charge, and, within 180 days from the date of this order, proceedings toward the new trial on the murder
20
charge are initiated.
21
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
22
23
Dated this _____ day of August, 2016.
19th
24
25
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
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?