Smith v. LeGrand et al
ORDER denying ECF No. 24 Motion for More Definite Statement. Respondents have until 10/17/2016 to file and serve an answer, which must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner will have 45 days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 09/02/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KEITH G. SMITH,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00029-MMD-VPC
ROBERT LeGRAND, et al.,
Before the court are the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No.
15), respondents’ motion for a more definite statement (ECF No. 24), petitioner’s
opposition (ECF No. 25), and respondent’s reply (ECF No. 26). The court denies the
Respondents argue that petitioner has not alleged any case law in support of
grounds 1 through 4 and 6(f). The allegations in grounds 1 through 4 are largely the
same as the allegations in issues II through V on direct appeal. See Ex. 29, at 14-41
(ECF No. 16-29, at 25-52).1 The allegations in ground 6(f), which respondents call
ground 9 for unknown reasons, are largely the same as the allegations in issue V on the
appeal from the second denial of petitioner’s state habeas corpus petition. See Ex. 67,
at 20-23 (ECF No. 17-36, at 26-29). The Nevada Supreme Court was able to decide
that issue on its merits. Petitioner does not need to cite to court decisions in the petition,
and the factual
The orders of presentation on direct appeal and in the amended petition are different.
allegations in these grounds satisfy the requirements of Rule 2 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The court will be able to
determine whether the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision is due the deference of 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Respondents also argue that ground 7, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel, is unclear because of the incorporation statement at the start of the ground.
Petitioner has clarified the ground. Opposition, at 7 (ECF No. 25).
It is therefore ordered that respondents’ motion for a more definite statement
(ECF No. 24) is denied.
It is further ordered that respondents will have forty-five (45) days from the date
of entry of this order to file and serve an answer, which must comply with Rule 5 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner will
have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply.
DATED THIS 2nd day of September 2016.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?