Munoz v. Smith et al

Filing 90

ORDER - Answer/Response to ECF NO. 89 Second Amended Petition due by 1/18/2018. If answer filed then reply due 45 days from service of answer. If respondents file a motion, then the briefing schedule of Local Rule LR 7-2 shall apply. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 12/4/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

PETER J. MUNOZ, JR.,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

Case No. 3:11-cv-00197-LRH-RAM

GREGORY SMITH, WARDEN, et al.,

13

ORDER

Respondents.

14
15

Petitioner has filed a second amended petition (ECF No. 89). The court has reviewed it

16

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

17

The court will direct respondents to file a response.

18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the

19

date of entry of this order to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended petition (ECF No.

20

89). If respondents file and serve an answer, then they shall comply with Rule 5 of the Rules

21

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and then petitioner shall have

22

forty-five (45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply. If respondents file a

23

motion, then the briefing schedule of Local Rule LR 7-2 shall apply.

24

DATED this 4th day of December, 2017.

25
26
27
28

_________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE