MARK ROGERS V. E.K. MCDANIEL, ET AL.

Filing 251

ORDERED that the petitioner's "Unopposed Motion for Petitioner Mark Rogers to Appear by Video" (ECF No. 245 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows : Petitioner's request for the petitioner, Mark Rogers , to appear at the evidentiary hearing by video is granted. Respondents are to make arrangements at the prison where the petitioner is incarcerated to have the petitioner appear by video at the evidentiary hearing. Petitioner is t o file a notice, within one week from the date of this order, stating whether an attorney representing the petitioner will be present at the prison to consult with the petitioner during the evidentiary hearing. The status conference set fo r October 2, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. is vacated. Petitioner's request to appear by video at the October 2, 2018, status conference is denied as moot. The Clerk substitute James Dzurenda for James G. Cox, and shall substitute William Gittere, for Renee Baker, on the docket for this case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 9/11/2018. (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

MARK ROGERS,

Case No. 3:02-cv-00342-GMN-VPC
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

12
13
14

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,
Respondents.

15
16

In this habeas corpus action, the Court has granted the petitioner, Mark Rogers,

17

an evidentiary hearing with respect to Ground 5 of Rogers’ second amended habeas

18

petition. See Order entered November 6, 2017 (ECF No. 215); Order entered November

19

28, 2017 (ECF No. 217). The evidentiary hearing will commence on October 22, 2018.

20

See Order entered March 14, 2018 (ECF No. 222).

21

On September 7, 2018, Rogers filed an “Unopposed Motion for Petitioner Mark

22

Rogers to Appear by Video” (ECF No. 245). In that motion, Rogers’ counsel represents

23

that Rogers does not wish to travel to Las Vegas for the evidentiary hearing. See Motion

24

(ECF No. 245), p. 1. Rogers’ counsel requests that the Court approve Rogers’

25

appearance by video at the evidentiary hearing. Respondents do not oppose this request.

26

See id. at 1-2. The Court will approve Rogers’ appearance at the evidentiary hearing by

27

video, and will order the respondents to make the arrangements at the prison for such

28

appearance. The Court will order Rogers’ counsel to file a notice stating whether an
1

1

attorney representing Rogers will be present at the prison to consult with Rogers during

2

the evidentiary hearing.

3

Rogers also requests that the Court allow Rogers to appear by video at the status

4

conference scheduled for October 2, 2018. The Court will deny this request, however, as

5

moot. The Court determines that the status conference, which was set to address the

6

question of Rogers’ appearance at the evidentiary hearing, is no longer necessary; the

7

October 2, 2018 status conference will be vacated.

8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petitioner’s “Unopposed Motion for

9

Petitioner Mark Rogers to Appear by Video” (ECF No. 245) is GRANTED IN PART AND

10

DENIED IN PART, as follows.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s request for the petitioner, Mark

11
12

Rogers, to appear at the evidentiary hearing by video is granted.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondents are to make arrangements at

14

the prison where the petitioner is incarcerated to have the petitioner appear by video at

15

the evidentiary hearing.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner is to file a notice, within one week

17

from the date of this order, stating whether an attorney representing the petitioner will be

18

present at the prison to consult with the petitioner during the evidentiary hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the status conference set for October 2, 2018, at

19
20

10:00 a.m. is vacated.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s request to appear by video at the

21
22

October 2, 2018, status conference is denied as moot.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

2

25(d), the Clerk of the Court shall substitute James Dzurenda for James G. Cox, on the

3

docket for this case, as the respondent director of the Nevada Department of Corrections,

4

and shall substitute William Gittere, for Renee Baker, on the docket for this case, as the

5

respondent warden.

6
7

11
September
DATED THIS ___ day of ______________________, 2018.

8
9
10

GLORIA M. NAVARRO,
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3