Hidalgo v. LeGrand et al
Filing
86
ORDERED Petitioner Luis Hidalgo's motion to continue his remaining grounds and dismiss Ground 16 only (ECF No. 84 ) is granted. Ground 16 of the Third Amended Petition is dismissed from this action. Respondents will have 60 days from the date of entry of this order (3/7/2022) to file and serve an answer. Reply due 30 days thereafter. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/5/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Case 3:16-cv-00618-MMD-WGC Document 86 Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 1
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
LUIS ALONSO HIDALGO, III,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00618-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,
7
ORDER
v.
8
ROBERT LEGRAND, et al.,
9
Respondents.
10
11
This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Previously, the Court
12
granted in part Respondents’ motion to dismiss, finding in relevant part that Petitioner
13
Luis Hidalgo had not exhausted his state-court remedies for Ground 16 of the Third
14
Amended Petition. (ECF No. 83.) Hidalgo has filed a motion to continue his remaining
15
grounds and dismiss Ground 16 only. (ECF No. 84.) Respondents have not filed a
16
response. The Court finds good cause exists to grant the motion.
17
It is therefore ordered that Petitioner Luis Hidalgo's motion to continue his
18
remaining grounds and dismiss Ground 16 only (ECF No. 84) is granted. Ground 16 of
19
the Third Amended Petition is dismissed from this action.
20
It is further is ordered that Respondents will have 60 days from the date of entry of
21
this order to file and serve an answer, which must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules
22
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Hidalgo will have 30
23
days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply.
24
DATED THIS 5th Day of January 2022.
25
26
27
28
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF 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?