Hawes v. Palmer et al

Filing 45

ORDERED grounds 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(1), 8(3), 8(4), 8(5), 8(6), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15(I)(D), and 15(I)(E) are DISMISSED from this action. FURTHER ORD Rs' answer due by 3/16/2013; P's reply due 45 days from service of answer. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
! FL: I E . i ETRD NEE sl os Rc wn Es ( s ws j ; , ! cot tp y oFR o wsE/xm s Ecol l ! J 3! 2 1 AN 23 2. 3 8 Y: Q ERKLSolTql cot I s cT my DI RI ST CTOFNEV DA A DEPW Y 4 j ' 6 7 U NITED STATES D ISTR I C O URT CT D ISTR I O F NEV AD A CT 8 9 LAN CE DEON HA W ES, l0 Pettoner, ii Cas No.3: cve 10- 00655RCJVPC Il vs. O RDER l2 JACK PA LM ER,etal, . l3 . ' Respondent s. i 1 4 1 5 1 6 Thec tha deennie t tpeii erh sn e use hi a iabl saec trme e our d t n d ha tton a ot xha td s val e tt-our e dis fro gonsfreif Or r(/ ).Pettonerhass tedadeclrton( i whihhe o sme rud o rl de /37 ii e ubmit aai #44) n c . 17 di m i t unexhaust gr s sses he ed ounds. Rcspondent w ilneed t ans ert r ai ng gr s l o w he em ni ounds. 1 8 ( 1 ! . ' . 1 I I I THERE OR. ORDERED ta go n s1 2 4 5 6 7 8 l, ()84, ()86 9 TS F E h t ru d , , , , , , ()83, ()85, () , 1 l l l,21 1,5) )n 1lEa DSI SDfmtsco. 9 0 l1 3 41lD, d5))r ISI E r h ai , , , (( a (( e S o i tn 2 0 ' j 1 l I I FURTHERORDERED ta rso d nssal a efryfv (5 d y fo ted t TS h tep n e t h lhv ot-ie 4 ) as rm h ae 21 o e r oft so de t tl a s l e a a we f nty hi r r o ie nd e' n ns r v , ! whihs lc ywihRul 5o t Ruls c bal ompl t e f he c I 22 Gove ni g Se ton 2 Ca e i t Unied St t Di ti tCours Pe ii ne s al ha e f t - i r n c i 254 s s n he t a es s rc t . tto r h l v ory fve ' 23 ( d ysfom t daeonwhiht a we i sr dt tl ar y 45) a r he t c he ns r s eve o ie epl. 24 Da e Januar 29,201 t d: y 3. ' j ' 25 I . 26 I ' z 7 èhe unth ttsDititu g if i e e src Jd e ' 28 j ! . ' j I 1 i - 1

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?