Thompson v. Baca et al
ORDER re ECF No. 6 Notice of Conflict. Attorney Mark D. Eibert for Marcel D. Thompson in place and stead of attorney Megan Hoffman; show cause in writing due 2/25/2018; response due within 30 days after service; reply due within 30 days of service of response; clerk to provide counsel upon request with a single set of electronic copies of all prior filings; clerk directed to send copy of order to petitioner to address in record (mailed to P on 11/27/2017). See order for further details and instructions. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/27/2017., (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MARCEL D. THOMPSON,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00330-MMD-WGC
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
Following upon the Federal Public Defender’s notice of conflict (ECF No. 6), it is
ordered that the provisional appointment of the Federal Public Defender is withdrawn and
that Mark D. Eibert, Esq., Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 1126, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019,
(650) 638-2380, is appointed as counsel for petitioner pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel will represent petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this
matter, including any appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw.
It is further ordered that, within ninety (90) days of entry of this order, petitioner
must show cause in writing through counsel why the petition is not subject to dismissal
as a successive petition following upon the denial on the merits of petitioner’s prior federal
petition in No. 3:05-cv-00468-HDM-RAM.
It is further ordered that nothing herein forecloses petitioner from seeking other
appropriate relief in this Court or the Court of Appeals and/or requesting that petitioner be
allowed first to file a counseled amended petition prior to addressing the successiveness
of the petition and/or other issues. In all events, any deadline established and/or any
extension thereof will not signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time
period thereof will not signify any implied finding of a basis for tolling during the time period
established. Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating the running of the
federal limitation period and timely presenting claims. That is, by setting a deadline and/or
by granting any extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or representation that the
petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained therein are not subject to
dismissal as untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013).
It is further ordered that respondents may file a response to petitioner’s show-
cause response within thirty (30) days of service and that petitioner may file a reply within
thirty (30) days of service of the response.
Following entry of Mr. Eibert as counsel of record on the docket, the Clerk of Court
will provide counsel, upon his request, with a single set of electronic copies of all prior
filings herein in a manner consistent with the Clerk’s current practice, such as
regeneration of notices of electronic filing.
The Clerk further will send a copy of this order to the petitioner in proper person at
the last institutional address in the record and reflect said transmittal either via the notice
of electronic filing or on the docket, in a manner consistent with the Clerk’s current
DATED THIS 27th day of November 2017.
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?