Chavez-Juarez v. State of Nevada et al
Filing
10
ORDER that counsel for Petitioner must meet with Petitioner as soon as reasonably possible, if counsel has not already done so, for review as outlined in order; petitioner has until 10/24/2018 to file and serve an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus; respondents will have (45) days after service to answer or otherwise respond; state court record exhibits filed by the parties herein must be filed with an index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter; parties must se nd courtesy copies of all exhibits to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, and directed to the attention of Staff Attorney on the outside of the mailing address label. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/26/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
ANTONIO CHAVEZ-JUAREZ,
10
Case No. 3:17-cv-00192-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
11
NEVADA, STATE OF, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14
This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
15
2254 by Nevada state prisoner Antonio Chavez-Juarez. On June 20, 2018, this Court
16
granted Petitioner’s motion for counsel and appointed the Federal Public Defender to
17
represent Petitioner in this action (ECF No. 5). On July 20, 2018, Amelia Bizzaro of the
18
Federal Public Defender’s Office appeared on behalf of Petitioner (ECF No. 9). The Court
19
now sets a schedule for further proceedings in this action.
20
It is therefore ordered that counsel for Petitioner must meet with Petitioner as soon
21
as reasonably possible, if counsel has not already done so, to: (a) review the procedures
22
applicable in cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; (b) discuss and explore with Petitioner, as
23
fully as possible, the potential grounds for habeas corpus relief in Petitioner’s case; and
24
(c) advise Petitioner that all possible grounds for habeas corpus relief must be raised at
25
this time in this action and that the failure to do so will likely result in any omitted grounds
26
being barred from future review.
27
///
28
///
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
It is further ordered that Petitioner has ninety (90) days from the date of this order
to file and serve on Respondents an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, which
must include all known grounds for relief (both exhausted and unexhausted).
It is further ordered that Respondents will have forty-five (45) days after service of
an amended petition within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the amended
petition. If Petitioner does not file an amended petition, Respondents will have forty-five
(45) days from the date on which the amended petition is due within which to answer, or
otherwise respond to, Petitioner’s original petition.
It is further ordered that, if and when Respondents file an answer or other
responsive pleading, Petitioner will have thirty (30) days after service of the answer or
responsive pleading to file and serve his response.
It is further ordered that any state court record exhibits filed by the parties herein
must be filed with an index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The
CM/ECF attachments that are filed must further be identified by the number or letter of
the exhibit in the attachment.
It is further ordered that the parties must send courtesy copies of all exhibits to the
Reno Division of the Court. Courtesy copies must be mailed to the Clerk of Court, 400 S.
Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, and directed to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the
outside of the mailing address label. Additionally, in the future, all parties must provide
courtesy copies of any additional exhibits submitted to the Court in this case in the manner
described above.
DATED this 26th day of July 2018.
23
24
25
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?