Lawver v. Nevada Attorney General

Filing 26

ORDERED that Respondents file a response to ECF No. 4 petition by 10/26/2018; Respondents will file an answer that consolidates any procedural defenses raised together with their response on the merits, in a single response presenting all defenses; Petitioner will have 60 days from service of the answer to dispatch a reply to the Clerk for filing; Clerk is requested and directed to correct: (1) the docket entry in ECF No. 7 to reflect that it is a limited response to the petition, rather than an answer; (2) the docket entry in ECF No. 9 to reflect that it is a response by Petitioner to the Court's prior order (ECF No. 3 ) rather than a traverse to an answer; and (3) the docket entry in ECF No. 13 to reflect that it is a reply to the limited response in ECF No. 7 rather than a traverse to an answer. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/27/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ROBERT WILLIAM LAWVER,
Petitioner,

10

Case No. 3:16-cv-00379-MMD-VPC
ORDER

v.
11
WARDEN, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 currently is pending before the Court

15

on a show-cause inquiry as to whether Petitioner Robert William Lawver’s federal habeas

16

petition is subject to dismissal as untimely.

17

Following review, the Court declines to further consider the timeliness issue on a

18

sua sponte inquiry, without prejudice to Respondents’ ability to pursue the issue in their

19

response. The Court finds that the most efficient manner to address the procedural and

20

merits issues in this case would be following an answer by Respondents presenting all

21

procedural and merits defenses within a single, consolidated response. While the Court

22

often orders that procedural defenses be presented separately from a response on the

23

merits, the Court instead is directing Respondents to present all defenses in a single

24

response.

25

It is therefore ordered that, within sixty (60) days of entry of this Order, Respondents

26

will file a response to the petition. The response will comply with the remaining provisions

27

below, which are tailored to this particular case based upon the Court's screening of the

28

matter and which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 4. The Court is seeking to resolve

1

this matter as promptly as possible. Any requests for extension based upon scheduling

2

conflicts between this case and other cases in this district therefore ordinarily should be

3

sought in the later-filed case.

4

It is further ordered that Respondents will file an answer that consolidates any

5

procedural defenses raised together with their response on the merits, in a single response

6

presenting all defenses. Any applicable defenses not included in the answer potentially

7

may be waived. Respondents must specifically cite to and address the applicable state

8

court written decision and state court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within

9

the response as to that claim. 1

10
11

It is further ordered that Petitioner will have sixty (60) days from service of the
answer to dispatch a reply to the Clerk of Court for filing.

12

The Clerk further is requested and directed to correct: (1) the docket entry in ECF

13

No. 7 to reflect that it is a limited response to the petition, or similar designation selected

14

by the Clerk, rather than an answer; (2) the docket entry in ECF No. 9 to reflect that it is a

15

response by Petitioner to the Court’s prior order (ECF No. 3) rather than a traverse to an

16

answer; and (3) the docket entry in ECF No. 13 to reflect that it is a reply to the limited

17

response in ECF No. 7 rather than a traverse to an answer.

18

DATED THIS 27th day of August 2018.

19
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1Respondents

previously have filed certain state court record exhibits herein. Any
additional state court record exhibits filed with the response will comply with the prior order
with regard to the format of the filing and delivery of the hard copies. (See ECF No. 3 at
4–5.)
The petition is not on the Court’s required petition form. However, given the age of
the case, the Court exercises its discretion to overlook the failure to comply with the local
rules in this regard.
2