Green v. McDaniel et al
Filing
36
THEREFORE ORDERED that P's # 30 Motion for stay is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that P's renewed # 31 Motion transcripts is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that by 2/17/2013 P SHALL SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey the Court's March 14, 2012 28 Order. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/28/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
JAMES H. GREEN,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
E.K. McDANIEL, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/
3:11-cv-00230-LRH-VPC
ORDER
14
15
16
17
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
by a Nevada state prisoner.
On March 14, 2012, the Court entered an order, granting in part and denying in part,
18
respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition. (ECF No. 28). The Court made specific findings that
19
Grounds 5B and 5D of the petition were unexhausted. (Id.). Petitioner was granted thirty days to do
20
one of the following:
21
(1) inform this court in a sworn declaration that he wishes to formally
and forever abandon the unexhausted grounds for relief in his federal
habeas petition and proceed on the exhausted grounds; OR (2) inform
this court in a sworn declaration that he wishes to dismiss this petition
without prejudice in order to return to state court to exhaust his
unexhausted claims; OR (3) file a motion for a stay and abeyance,
asking this court to hold his exhausted claims in abeyance while he
returns to state court to exhaust his unexhausted claims.
(ECF No. 28, at p. 11).
22
23
24
25
26
Instead of choosing one of the options permitted by the Court’s order, petitioner filed a
27
“motion for stay or alternatively, motion for enlargement of time to object to Magistrate Report.”
28
(ECF No. 30). First, petitioner is informed that the order of March 14, 2012, and indeed every order
1
entered in this case, has been signed by a United States District Judge – not a Magistrate Judge.
2
Moreover, nowhere in petitioner’s motion does he actually seek a stay. Rather, he disputes the
3
portion of this Court’s March 14, 2012 order that denies his request for copies of the trial transcript
4
from his criminal case number C238875. Petitioner’s “motion for stay or alternatively, motion for
5
enlargement of time to object to Magistrate Report” (ECF No. 30) is denied.
6
Petitioner has also filed a renewed motion for copies of the trial transcript from his criminal
7
trial. (ECF No. 31). The transcripts requested by petitioner are included in the exhibits attached to
8
respondents’ motion to dismiss, as previously explained in the order of March 14, 2012. Petitioner’s
9
motion for transcripts (ECF No. 31) is denied.
10
Finally, the Court’s order of March 14, 2012 stated that “if petitioner fails to respond to this
11
order within the time permitted, this case may be dismissed.” (ECF No. 28, at p. 11). Petitioner has
12
not followed this Court’s direction to choose one of the three options enumerated in the order of
13
March 14, 2012. As such, petitioner is ordered to show cause, in writing, why this action should not
14
be dismissed for failure to obey this Court’s order. Petitioner shall show cause in writing within
15
twenty (20) days why this action should not be dismissed in its entirety.
16
17
18
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s “motion for stay or alternatively, motion
for enlargement of time to object to Magistrate Report” (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s renewed motion for copies of the transcript
from his criminal trial (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within twenty (20) days of the entry of this order,
21
petitioner SHALL SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for failure
22
to obey the Court’s March 14, 2012 order.
23
24
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s failure to comply with this Court’s order will
result in dismissal of this action.
DATED this 28th day of January, 2013.
26
27
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?