Mulder v. MCDANIEL et al

Filing 92

ORDER Respondents shall file response to amended petition 7 on or before 8/1/2013. Petitioner may move for stay any time prior to that date. On or before 6/10/2013, parties shall file joint statement advising the court whether they wish to engage in further settlement discussions and, if so, whether they want the magistrate judge assigned to this case to assist with those discussions. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 5/1/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

MICHAEL JOSEPH MULDER,

11

Petitioner,

12

vs.

13

RENEE BAKER, et al.,

14
15
16

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

3:09-CV-00610-PMP-WGC
ORDER

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court has vacated this court’s

17

September 26, 2011, order staying petitioner’s federal habeas proceedings pending restoration of

18

competency (ECF No. 74) and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Ryan v. Gonzales,

19

133 S.Ct. 696 (2013). ECF No. 86. Based on the extensive record before this court bearing on the

20

issue of petitioner’s competency (primarily, ECF Nos. 62-72), as well as this court’s previous

21

findings and conclusions on that issue (ECF No. 74), there is very little, if any, likelihood that

22

petitioner will regain competence in the foreseeable future. As such, a stay of proceedings due to

23

petitioner’s lack of competence is no longer appropriate. See Gonzales, 133 S.Ct. at 709.

24

As discussed in the status conference held on April 29, 2013, proceedings shall now resume

25

and respondents shall file a response to petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF

26

No. 7) on or before August 1, 2013. In addition, petitioner may move for a stay pursuant to Rhines

1

v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005), any time prior to (or on) that date. In the meantime, however, the

2

parties shall confer regarding whether this case may be amenable to settlement. On or before June

3

10, 2013, the parties shall file a joint statement advising the court whether they wish to engage in

4

further settlement discussions and, if so, whether they want the magistrate judge assigned to this case

5

to assist with those discussions.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: May 1, 2013

8
9
10

_________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2