Williams v. Gentry et al

Filing 17

ORDER that respondent have until 12/06/2017 to respond to ECF No. 16 Motion for Production of Documents; thereafter petitioner will have 20 days to file a reply; petitioner's response to respondents' motion to dismiss ECF No. 9 is suspended. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 11/16/2017. (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

NATHAN WILLIAMS,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

3:17-cv-00365-HDM-WGC

JOE GENTRY, et al.,

ORDER
13
14

Respondents.
_______________________________/

15
16

In this habeas corpus action, brought pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by

17

Nathan Williams, a Nevada prisoner, the reespondents filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2017

18

(ECF No. 9). Respondents filed exhibits in support of the motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 10, 11 and

19

12). Williams’ response to the motion to dismiss is due on December 4, 2017. See Order entered

20

August 1, 2017 (ECF No. 5); Order entered October 12, 2017 (ECF No. 13).

21

On October 26, 2017, Williams filed a request that the Clerk of the Court send him copies of

22

certain exhibits -- an Exhibit 94, and two others, apparently -- that he felt respondents had failed to

23

serve upon him (ECF No. 14). The Court denied that request on October 30, 2017 (ECF No. 15),

24

determining that, as no such exhibits had been filed by respondents, there had been no failure to

25

serve such exhibits on Williams.

26

1

On November 15, 2017, Williams filed a Motion for Production of Documents (ECF No. 16),

2

again concerning the exhibits that he believes he is missing. In this motion, Williams requests that

3

respondents be ordered to produce the following three documents:

4

-

“Exhibit 94; Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Post-Conviction), filed
8/16/16, Nevada Supreme Court, Case No. 71033;”

-

“Order Denying Petition, Filed 10/13/16, Nevada Supreme Court, Case No.
71033 (Exhibit 95);” and

-

“Exhibit 96; Notice in Lieu of Remittitur, Filed 11/07/16, Nevada Supreme
Court Case No. 71033.”

5
6
7
8
9

Motion for Production of Documents (ECF No. 16), p. 1.

10

The Court will require respondents to respond to Williams’ motion for production of

11

documents, and will suspend Williams’ response to the motion to dismiss pending resolution of that

12

motion.

13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents shall, within 20 days from the date of

14

this order, respond to petitioner’s Motion for Production of Documents (ECF No. 16). Thereafter,

15

petitioner will have 20 days to file a reply.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s response to respondents’ motion to dismiss

17

(ECF No. 9) is suspended. The Court will set a new deadline for petitioner’s response to that motion

18

after the motion for production of documents is resolved.

19

Dated this 16th day of November, 2017.

20
21
22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26

2