Flowers v. Warden et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender's Office is appointed as counsel for petitioner. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's 12 Second Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner sha ll have 120 days to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. If respondents elect to file aresponse, they may do so no later than thirty (30) days from service of the show cause response. Petitioner then sha ll have twenty (20) days from service of the response within which to file a reply. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the CJA Coordinator for this Division (ack). NOTE: A copy of this Order was sent to petitioner.(Notice of Compliance is due by 11/30/2010.) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 08/02/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
Flowers v. Warden et al
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 vs. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court following upon the notice (#14) of appearance by counsel with the Federal Public Defender, and further on the Court's still-pending initial review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. As per the prior order (#5), the Court sua sponte raises the issue of whether the petition is subject to dismissal as time-barred. Petitioner, through counsel, will be directed to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as untimely. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender's Office is appointed as counsel for petitioner pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B), with Paul G. Turner, Esq., appearing as petitioner's counsel of record. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner's second motion (#12) for appointment of counsel, which apparently crossed in the mail with the Court's earlier order granting his first motion, is DENIED as moot. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, taking into account the amount of investigation that likely will be necessary, petitioner shall have until up to and including one hundred twenty WARDEN, et al., Respondents. ORDER JOHN FLOWERS, Petitioner, 3:10-cv-00367-ECR-VPC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
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 27 28
(120) days from entry of this order to SHOW CAUSE, with specific competent supporting evidence, why the petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. If
petitioner's counsel instead wishes to amend the petition and/or to seek other relief prior to responding to the show cause order, counsel shall request a modification of the scheduling order and/or such other relief by the 120-day response deadline. Nothing in the Court's orders halts the running of the federal limitation period as to the petition or any claim absent an express direction to that effect. Respondents may respond to the show cause response, but they are not required to do so. The case remains in initial review under Rule 4, and no further response by
respondents shall be required until further order of the Court. If respondents elect to file a response, they may do so no later than thirty (30) days from service of the show cause response. Petitioner then shall have twenty (20) days from service of the response within which to file a reply. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the CJA Coordinator for this Division. DATED: August 2, 2010
_________________________________ EDWARD C. REED United States District Judge
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?