Snure v. Warden et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 26 motion to reopen case. Respondents to respond to the remaining grounds of 4 petition within 45 days; Petitioner to reply within 45 days thereafter. Hard copies of any exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in Reno. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10

***

11

THEODORE C. SNURE,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 3:11-cv-00344-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
WARDEN, et al.,
Respondents.

16
17
18

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.

19

On December 14, 2011, this Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice

20

Grounds 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal

21

habeas relief. (Dkt. no. 18.) In the same order, the Court ruled that the petition was a

22

mixed petition, as Grounds 1, 3, and 5 of the petition were unexhausted, but Ground 7

23

was exhausted. (Id.) The Court gave petitioner the option of abandoning his

24

unexhausted claims and proceeding on his exhausted claims, or in the alternative, to

25

seek a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Petitioner moved for the

26

issuance of stay and abeyance order under Rhines v. Weber. (Dkt. no. 19). By order

27

filed March 16, 2012, this Court granted petitioner’s motion for a stay and this case was

28

administratively closed. (Dkt. no. 22.)

1

Petitioner’s further state-court proceedings having concluded,1 petitioner has now

2

returned to this Court seeking to reopen this case. (Dkt. no. 26.) Although petitioner’s

3

motion to reopen indicates that it was served on respondents, the respondents have not

4

filed a response to petitioner’s motion. Good cause appearing, this action is reopened

5

and the Court now sets a further briefing schedule for this action.

6
7

It is therefore ordered that petitioner’s motion to reopen this action (dkt. no. 26) is
granted. The Clerk shall reopen the file in this action.

8

It is further ordered that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days following the

9

date of entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the

10

remaining grounds of the petition on file (dkt. no. 4).

11

It is further ordered that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days following service

12

of the answer to file and serve a reply brief. If a dispositive motion is filed in response to

13

the petition, the parties shall brief the motion in accordance with Local Rule 7-2.

14

It is further ordered that the parties shall send courtesy (paper) copies of any

15

further exhibits filed in this action to the Reno Division of this Court. Courtesy copies

16

shall be mailed to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, and directed

17

to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the outside of the mailing address label.

18

DATED THIS 20th day of January 2015.

19
20
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

On March 12, 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of
petitioner’s most recent post-conviction petition. Remittitur issued on April 9, 2014. This
information was obtained from the Appellate Case Management System found at
http://supreme.nvcourts.gov.

2