Reiger v. Nevens et al
Filing
11
ORDER Clerk shall electronically serve the petition upon the respondents (served on 9/25/12). Respondents shall have 45 days to answer. Any state court record exhibits filed by respondents shall be filed with separate index. Hard copy of all state court record exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to staff attorneys in the Reno Division of the Clerk of Court. Henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon AG copy of every pleading, motion, or other document he submits for consideration by the court and include certificate of service. Motion to Respond to U.S. Attorney's pleading 9 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/25/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
ROBERT M. REIGER,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DWIGHT NEVENS, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/
3:12-cv-00218-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. Petitioner has submitted the filing fee for this action.
This Court received the petition on April 19, 2012. (ECF No. 1). The Court granted
18
petitioner’s prior motion for an extension of time, presumably to amend the petition. (ECF No. 6).
19
To date, petitioner has not filed an amended petition. As such, this action shall proceed on the
20
original petition. (ECF No. 1). The petition shall now be filed and served on respondents.
21
A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which petitioner is
22
aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be forever barred from
23
seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) (successive petitions).
24
25
26
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the
petition (ECF No. 1, including all sub-parts) upon the respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from entry of
27
this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. In their answer or other
28
response, respondents shall address all claims presented in the petition. Respondents shall raise all
1
potential affirmative defenses in the initial responsive pleading, including lack of exhaustion and
2
procedural default. Successive motions to dismiss will not be entertained. If an answer is filed,
3
respondents shall comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the
4
United States District Courts under 28 U.S.C. §2254. If an answer is filed, petitioner shall have
5
forty-five (45) days from the date of service of the answer to file a reply.
6
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any state court record exhibits filed by respondents shall
7
be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The hard copy
8
of all state court record exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to the staff attorneys in the Reno
9
Division of the Clerk of Court.
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon the Attorney
11
General of the State of Nevada a copy of every pleading, motion, or other document he submits for
12
consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a
13
certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to the Attorney
14
General. The Court may disregard any paper that does not include a certificate of service. After
15
respondents appear in this action, petitioner shall make such service upon the particular Deputy
16
Attorney General assigned to the case.
17
18
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 9) to respond to U.S.
Attorney’s pleading is DENIED, as no such filing is found in the Court’s docket.
Dated this 25th day of September, 2012.
20
21
___________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
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?