Green v. McDaniel et al

Filing 20

ORDER Clerk shall add AG as counsel for respondents and make electronic service of amended petition 18 and this order. The Clerk further shall regenerate notices of electric filing for all filings for respondents (all electronic notice co mpleted 1/3/2014). Respondents shall have 30 days to respond to amended petition in accordance with the terms set forth in attached order. Counsel shall send hard copy of all exhibits to, for this case, Las Vegas Clerk's Office. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 1/3/14. Please see attached for details. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9

JAMES HENRY GREEN,

10

Petitioner,

11

3:11-cv-00161-HDM-VPC

vs.

12

ORDER
ELDON K. MCDANIEL, et al.,

13
Respondents.
14
15
16

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

17

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

18

response will be directed.

19

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall add Attorney General

20

Catherine Cortez Masto as counsel for respondents, and shall make informal electronic

21

service of both the amended petition (#18) and this order upon respondents through her office

22

in a manner consistent with the Clerk’s current practice. The Clerk further shall regenerate

23

notices of electric filing for all filings herein for respondents.

24

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents shall have thirty (30) days from entry

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Habeas Rule 4.

1

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

2

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

3

response. Procedural defenses omitted from respondents’ single consolidated answer to the

4

petition will be subject to potential waiver. In this regard, the Court is not inclined to dismiss

5

the lay petitioner’s claims for alleged pleading insufficiency or to order further amendments

6

to the pleadings. If an exhausted and similarly pled claim was rejected on the merits by the

7

state supreme court, this Court is inclined to address the underlying merits issue of whether

8

the state supreme court’s rejection of the claim as pled and presented in the state courts

9

withstands review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). While respondents of course may raise any

10

available procedural defenses in their response, the Court does not wish to delay a resolution

11

of the merits of the case for further pleading amendments. In the single consolidated

12

response provided for by this order, respondents shall respond to the merits of the claims

13

asserted even if they otherwise challenge the sufficiency of petitioner’s federal allegations.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, with their response, respondents shall file a single

18

set of state record exhibits relevant to the petition, in substantially chronological order and

19

indexed as discussed, infra.

20

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that all state court record exhibits filed herein shall be filed

21

with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number.

22

attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers of the exhibits

23

in the attachment, in the same manner as in No. 3:06-cv-00087-ECR-VPC, ## 25-71. The

24

purpose of this provision is so that the Court and any reviewing court thereafter will be able

25

to quickly determine from the face of the electronic docket sheet which exhibits are filed in

26

which attachments.

27
28

The CM/ECF

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that counsel additionally shall send a hard copy of all
exhibits filed to, for this case, the Las Vegas Clerk's Office.
-2-

1

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that no extensions of time should be sought based

2

upon scheduling conflicts with other cases on the docket of this Court unless the other

3

case was filed prior to this case, absent compelling circumstances.1
DATED: January 3, 2014.

4
5
6

__________________________________
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Respondents are not responsible for any delay in this case. The Court is seeking to resolve this
case prior to resolving other cases on its docket that were filed later than this case. Accordingly, if counsel
has competing scheduling demands in later-filed cases in this District, the Court would prefer to extend the
deadlines in the later-filed case or cases rather than this case.

-3-