Elliott v. McDaniel et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting Petitioner's ECF No. 39 Motion for Reconsideration; vacating the Court's ECF No. 38 Order; denying as moot Petitioner's ECF No. 41 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Show Cause Orde r; directing counsel for Petitioner to meet with Petitioner as soon as reasonably possible. Amended petition due within 90 days, response due within 45 days thereafter, and reply due within 30 days after response. Any exhibits to be filed with separate index. Courtesy copies of any exhibits to be forwarded -- for this case -- to staff attorneys in Reno. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/18/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ROBERT W. ELLIOTT,

10

Case No. 3:11-cv-00041-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
E.K. MCDANIEL, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

On October 29, 2014, this Court dismissed without prejudice petitioner Robert W.

15

Elliott’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because it

16

was wholly unexhausted (ECF No. 23). Judgment was entered (ECF No. 24). Elliott

17

appealed, and on October 3, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and

18

remanded in light of its recent decision in Mena v. Long, 813 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2016)

19

(ECF No. 35). The court of appeals directed that this Court determine whether Elliott was

20

entitled to a stay of his federal habeas petition. Accordingly, this Court issued an order

21

directing petitioner to demonstrate that he was entitled to a stay of these federal

22

proceedings. (ECF No. 38.)

23

Petitioner filed a counseled motion for reconsideration of that order, indicating that

24

the Federal Public Defender now represents petitioner. (ECF No. 39.) In light of the fact

25

that petitioner now has counsel, he seeks, through such counsel, leave to file an amended

26

petition. He argues that allowing the filing of a counseled, amended petition will promote

27

judicial economy and streamline this habeas litigation moving forward. Respondents have

28

not responded to petitioner’s motion in any way.

1
2
3
4
5
6

Good cause appearing, it is ordered that petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 39) is granted.
It is further ordered that this court’s order dated December 13, 2016 (ECF No. 38)
is vacated.
It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion for extension of time to respond to the
show-cause order (ECF No. 41) is denied as moot.

7

It is further ordered that counsel for petitioner must meet with petitioner as soon as

8

reasonably possible, if counsel has not already done so, to: (a) review the procedures

9

applicable in cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; (b) discuss and explore with petitioner, as

10

fully as possible, the potential grounds for habeas corpus relief in petitioner’s case; and

11

(c) advise petitioner that all possible grounds for habeas corpus relief must be raised at

12

this time in this action and that the failure to do so will likely result in any omitted grounds

13

being barred from future review.

14

It is further ordered that petitioner will have ninety (90) days from the date of this

15

order to file and serve on respondents an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus,

16

which must include all known grounds for relief (both exhausted and unexhausted).

17

It is further ordered that respondents will have forty-five (45) days after service of

18

an amended petition within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the amended

19

petition. If petitioner does not file an amended petition, respondents will have forty-five

20

(45) days from the date on which the amended petition is due within which to answer, or

21

otherwise respond to, petitioner’s original petition.

22

It is further ordered that, if and when respondents file an answer or other

23

responsive pleading, petitioner will have thirty (30) days after service of the answer or

24

responsive pleading to file and serve his response.

25

It is further ordered that any state court record exhibits filed by the parties herein

26

must be filed with an index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The

27

CM/ECF attachments that are filed must further be identified by the number or numbers

28

(or letter or letters) of the exhibits in the attachment.
2

1

It is further ordered that the parties must send courtesy copies of all exhibits to the

2

Reno Division of this court. Courtesy copies shall be mailed to the Clerk of Court, 400 S.

3

Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, and directed to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the

4

outside of the mailing address label. Additionally, in the future, all parties must provide

5

courtesy copies of any additional exhibits submitted to the Court in this case, in the

6

manner described above.

7

DATED THIS 18th day of August 2017.

8
9
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3