Prentice v. McDaniel et al

Filing 44

ORDERED response to # 32 Amended Petition due by 1/25/2014. FURTHER ORD response and any state court exhibits shall be filed as specified herein(see pdf order). FURTHER ORD P shall have 30 days from service of response to file a reply. FURTHE R ORD that, given the age of the case, no extensions of time should be sought based upon scheduling conflicts with other cases on the docket of this Court unless the other case was filed prior to this case, absent compelling circumstances. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7

ANTHONY PRENTICE,

8

Petitioner,

9

3:10-cv-00743-RCJ-VPC

vs.

10

ORDER
RENEE BAKER, et al.,

11
Respondents.
12
13
14

This habeas matter comes before the Court for initial review of the amended petition

15

(#32) under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Following initial review of

16

the petition, a response will be directed.

17

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

18

of this order within which to respond to the petition, as amended. Any response filed shall

19

comply with the remaining provisions below, which are tailored to this particular case

20

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

21

Habeas Rule 4.

22

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that – for this case – respondents shall combine any

23

procedural defenses with their response on the merits within a single consolidated response.

24

Procedural defenses omitted from respondents’ single consolidated response to the petition

25

will be subject to potential waiver.1

26
27
28

1

The amended complaint, in the main, presents five grounds alleging viable claims that petitioner was
deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The

(continued...)

1

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, in the response on the merits, respondents shall

2

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

3

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

4

of the case requires reference to additional state court record materials that were not filed with

5

the amended petition, respondents shall file a chronologically indexed set of exhibits with

6

copies of same with the response, with a hard copy sent to the Las Vegas Clerk’s Office.

7
8

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have thirty (30) days from service of
the response to file a reply.

9

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, given the age of the case, no extensions of time

10

should be sought based upon scheduling conflicts with other cases on the docket of

11

this Court unless the other case was filed prior to this case, absent compelling

12

circumstances.
DATED: November 25, 2013.

13
14
15

__________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
Chief United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

(...continued)

counseled amended petition states the claims variously as being that “[t]he Nevada Supreme Court erred
when finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding trial counsel was not ineffective,”
“[t]he Nevada Supreme Court erred when finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not
holding an evidentiary hearing to determine if trial counsel was ineffective,” and/or petitioner’s “constitutional
right to due process was violated because the Nevada Supreme Court erred when finding that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” To be abundantly
clear, any error or abuse of discretion by the state supreme court and/or state district court in the state postconviction proceedings does not independently give rise to a claim of constitutional error in a federal habeas
proceeding. Nor is the Court reviewing the decision of the state supreme court as an appellate court for
error. Rather, the Court is reviewing petitioner’s actual constitutional claims – i.e., that he was denied
effective assistance of trial counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments – under the
deferential standard of review set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). While respondents of course may assert any
available procedural defenses in their response, the Court does not wish to delay a resolution of the merits of
the case over these points. In the single consolidated response provided for by this order, respondents shall
respond to the merits of the actual ineffective-assistance claims presented even if they otherwise challenge
the manner in which the claims are framed in the counseled amended petition.

-2-