Lennon v. McDaniel et al

Filing 32

ORDERED Rs' response to # 22 Amended petition due by 6/15/2013. FURTHER ORD P shall have 30 days from service of response to file a reply or opposition. FURTHER ORD P's # 21 Motion for extension of time is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/12/2013. (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

RONALD LENNON,

10
11

Petitioner,

3:10-cv-00663-LRH-VPC

vs.

12

ORDER
DWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,

13
Respondents.
14
15
16

This represented habeas matter comes before the Court for initial review of the counseled

17

amended petition (#22) and on petitioner’s motion (#21) for an extension of time, which will be granted

18

nunc pro tunc. Following initial review, a response will be directed.

19

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that respondents shall have sixty (60) days from entry of this

20

order within which to respond, including potentially by motion to dismiss, to the petition, as amended.

21

Any response filed shall comply with the remaining provisions below, which are tailored to this

22

particular case based upon the Court's screening of the matter and which are entered pursuant

23

to Habeas Rule 4.

24

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

25

shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, the Court does not

26

wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in seriatum fashion in multiple successive

27

motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to

28

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. If respondents do seek

3

dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall do so within the single motion to

4

dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically direct their argument to the standard for

5

dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In

6

short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an answer. All

7

procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss.

8

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

9

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

10
11
12
13
14
15

materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of the
answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition.
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (#21) for an extension of time to file the
amended petition is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
DATED this 12th day of April, 2013.

16
17
____________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-