Volpicelli v. Palmer

Filing 17

ORDERED Rs' Answer/response to 7 Petition is due 9/11/2011. ( see pdf order for additional specifics ) FURTHER ORDERED that P shall have 30 days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. The deadline established by this order shall override any shorter deadline in a minute order issued pursuant to the Klingele decision. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/12/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9

FERRILL JOSEPH VOLPICELLI,
Petitioner,

10

3:10-cv-00005-LRH-VPC

11
vs.

ORDER

12
13
14

JACK PALMER, et al.,
Respondents.

15
16

This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court following initial review

17

under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the “Habeas Rules”) of the petition (#7),

18

following upon review of the state court record exhibits (#16) filed by respondents. Following said

19

review, it would appear that any issues regarding any applicable procedural defenses would be most

20

efficiently resolved following a response by respondents.

21

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that, given the lengthy petition, respondents shall have sixty

22

(60) days from entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition,

23

including by motion to dismiss. Any response filed shall comply with the remaining provisions below,

24

which are tailored to this particular case based upon the Court’s screening of the petition and which are

25

entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 4.

26

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this case

27

shall be raised together in a single motion to dismiss. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion

28

to dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that

1

consolidates their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28

2

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit.

3

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents shall

4

specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state court record

5

materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.

6

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, with any motion to dismiss or answer filed, respondents shall

7

file copies of any additional state court record materials – over and above those filed at #16 – that are

8

relevant and material to the procedural defenses asserted therein and/or to consideration of the merits

9

of the petitioner’s claims as to which dismissal is sought on the merits, including, but not limited to,

10

any items listed in Rule 5(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases that have not been filed

11

previously.

12

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any state court record exhibits filed by respondents herein

13

shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The

14

CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers (or letter or

15

letters) of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record

16

exhibits shall be forwarded – for this case – to the staff attorneys in Las Vegas, to the attention

17

of: “P3.”

18

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of the

19

answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. The deadline established by

20

this order shall override any shorter deadline in a minute order issued pursuant to the Klingele decision.

21

DATED this 12th day of July, 2011.

22
23
24
25

______________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
-2-