Cardenas-Ornelas v. Baker et al

Filing 75

ORDER Re: ECF No. 74 Declaration : The briefing period in this case has closed and additional filings will not be accepted. Further letters or declarations to the Court repeating this complaint will be disregarded. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/16/2021. (Copy mailed to P at HDSP in light of pro se submission docketed at ECF No. 74 .)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:17-cv-00461-MMD-CLB Document 75 Filed 03/16/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6

LUIS CARDENAS-ORNELAS,

7
8
9

Petitioner,

12

ORDER

v.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

10
11

Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-MMD-CLB

This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner Luis Cardenas-Ornelas’s
Declaration re: Unable to Communicate with Counsel. (ECF No. 74.)

13

The Court appointed David Neidert, Esq. to represent Cardenas-Ornelas in

14

December 2017. (ECF No. 10.) Since then, Cardenas-Ornelas has filed numerous pro se

15

letters/motions stating that he could not get in touch with Neidert despite letters and phone

16

calls, or had not received copies of filings. (ECF Nos. 25, 27, 31, 50, 57, 58, 70, 71, 74.)

17

However, the Court has found no indication of a conflict between Neidert and Cardenas-

18

Ornelas, or that Neidert was unable to adequately represent Cardenas-Ornelas. (See,

19

e.g., ECF Nos. 28, 32, 33, 59, 60.)

20

On October 8, 2020, Respondents filed an answer (ECF No. 69) to Cardenas-

21

Ornelas’s Amended Petition (ECF No. 11). Accordingly, any reply was due by November

22

9, 2020.1 (See ECF No. 56.) No reply was filed, and the deadline expired without request

23

for extension.

24

In recent letters (ECF Nos. 70, 71), Cardenas-Ornelas stated that he had not heard

25

from Neidert since July 2020, despite mailing him letters, and prison restrictions prevented

26
27
28

1Under

Rule 5(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, a “petitioner may file a reply to the respondent’s answer,” but it is not
required.

Case 3:17-cv-00461-MMD-CLB Document 75 Filed 03/16/21 Page 2 of 2

1

Cardenas-Ornelas from calling Neidert during business hours, Monday through Friday.

2

In its February 2021 Order (ECF No. 72), the Court informed Cardenas-Ornelas:

3

5

the briefing period in this case has closed, meaning that no additional filings
are required. The Court will evaluate the merits of Cardenas-Ornelas’s
Amended Petition (ECF No. 11) in due course. Given the Court’s heavy case
load and the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a written decision
may take several months.

6

(ECF No. 72 at 2.) Nevertheless, Neidert was instructed to respond directly to the Court

7

within 14 days by filing (1) a motion seeking leave to file an untimely reply, or (2) a notice

8

stating that a reply was not warranted. (Id.)

4

9

Neidert responded to the order informing the Court that, after reviewing the petition

10

and the Respondents’ answer, he does not believe a reply is warranted in this case. (ECF

11

No. 73.)2 Accordingly, the case stands as submitted awaiting a merits decision.

12
13

Petitioner’s Declaration (ECF No. 74) asks the Court to have Neidert contact him
(ECF No. 84)
with updates and send him copies of documents filed in the case.

14

As explained in the prior order, the briefing period in this case has closed and

15

additional filings will not be accepted. That means there will be no developments in this

16

case for Neidert to communicate to Cardenas-Ornelas until the Court issues a merits

17

decision, which may take over a year to issue because of the Court’s large case load.

18

Neidert will inform Cardenas-Ornelas once a merits decision is entered or move for

19

withdrawal and appointment of new counsel if the closing of his practice progresses before

20

a merits decision is entered. Further letters or declarations to the Court repeating this

21

complaint will be disregarded.

22

DATED THIS 16th Day of March 2021.

23
24
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

Neidert states that he is “in the process of closing his private practice” and will file
a motion to withdraw “in the near future, so that counsel can be appointed to represent
Mr. Cardenas-Ornelas in future proceedings.” (ECF No. 73 at 1.)
2

2