Hill v. Palmer et al

Filing 24

ORDER P's Show Cause Response to # 7 Order due by 5/21/2011. FURTHER ORD Rs' reply due 15 days after service of response. FURTHER ORD P's # 22 Motion to extend time is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 4/21/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

CHARLES H. HILL,

12

Petitioner,

13

vs.

14

JACK PALMER, et al.,

15

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

3:11-cv-00048-ECR-VPC
ORDER

16
17

This is an action on a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 brought

18

by Charles H. Hill an inmate at Northern Nevada Correctional Center. On February 17, 2011, the court

19

issued an order that, among other things, granted petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel and

20

stated that a scheduling order would issue after petitioner’s counsel appeared in the case. On March 17,

21

2011, counsel for petitioner entered a notice of appearance. Accordingly, the court sets a briefing

22

schedule on its January 27, 2011 order to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as

23

untimely. After ruling on the order to show cause, the court will issue a scheduling order setting

24

additional deadlines if necessary.

25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall file a response to the court’s January

26

27, 2011 order to show cause why his petition should not be dismissed as untimely within thirty days

1
2
3
4
5

from the date of service of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have fifteen days from the date
of service of the petitioner’s response to file a reply to the response.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to extend time regarding the
order to show cause (docket #22) is DENIED as moot.

6
7
8

Dated this 21st day of April, 2011.

9
10

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-2-