Reid v. Baker et al

Filing 11

ORDER - FPD Jeremy C. Baron, Esq. appointed as counsel for petitioner. Amended petition due by 4/13/2018, Answer/response to amended petition due 60 after service, and reply due 30 days thereafter. Any state court exhibits shall be filed with separate index as specified herein, and a hard copy of any exhibits shall be delivered to the Reno Clerk's Office. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 12/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8

RAFAEL REID,

9
10

Petitioner,

3:17-cv-00532-HDM-VPC

vs.

ORDER

11
12
13

CCS BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

14
15

Following upon the entry of appearance (ECF No. 10) by the Federal Public Defender,

16

IT IS ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender, through Jeremy C. Baron, Esq.,is

17

appointed as counsel for petitioner pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel will

18

represent petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this matter, including any appeals or

19

certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw.

20

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that petitioner shall have until up to and including one

21

hundred twenty (120) days from entry of this order within which to file an amended petition

22

and/or seek other appropriate relief. Neither the foregoing deadline nor any extension thereof

23

signifies or will signify any implied finding as to the expiration of the federal limitation period

24

and/or of a basis for tolling during the time period established. Petitioner at all times remains

25

responsible for calculating the running of the federal limitation period and timely asserting

26

claims, without regard to any deadlines established or extensions granted herein. That is, by

27

setting a deadline to amend the petition and/or by granting any extension thereof, the Court

28

makes no finding or representation that the petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any

1

claims contained therein are not subject to dismissal as untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729

2

F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013).

3

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the amended

4

petition, including potentially by motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days of service of an

5

amended petition and that petitioner may file a reply thereto within thirty (30) days of service

6

of the answer. The response and reply time to any motion filed by either party, including a

7

motion filed in lieu of a pleading, shall be governed instead by Local Rule LR 7-2(b).

8

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents to

9

the counseled amended petition shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to

10

dismiss. In other words, the Court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised

11

herein either in seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in

12

the answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to

13

potential waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that consolidates their

14

procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

15

§ 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents do seek

16

dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall do so within the single

17

motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically direct their argument to the

18

standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614,

19

623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses, including exhaustion, shall be

20

included with the merits in an answer. All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead

21

must be raised by motion to dismiss.

22

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents shall

23

specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state court

24

record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.

25

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any state court record and related exhibits filed herein

26

by either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying

27

the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by

28

the number or numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. If the exhibits filed will span more
-2-

1

than one ECF Number in the record, the first document under each successive ECF Number

2

shall be either another copy of the index, a volume cover page, or some other document

3

serving as a filler, so that each exhibit under the ECF Number thereafter will be listed under

4

an attachment number (i.e., Attachment 1, 2, etc.).

5
6
7

IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that the hard copy of any exhibits filed by either counsel
shall be delivered – for this case – to the Reno Clerk's Office.
DATED: December 14, 2017.

8
9
10
11

__________________________________
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-