Lara v. Baker et al

Filing 31

ORDER that Respondents' Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 29 ) is granted, as explained herein. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

FRANCISCO A. LARA,

10
11
12

Case No. 3:17-cv-00544-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
WARDEN BAKER, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

In this habeas corpus action, brought by Nevada prisoner Francisco A. Lara,

16

Respondents must file an answer by November 19, 2018. (See Order entered August 20,

17

2018 (ECF No. 28).)

18

On August 22, 2018, Respondents filed a motion for clarification (ECF No. 29),

19

pointing out that the scheduling order in the case allows for a response to Lara’s reply,

20

and requesting clarification “whether the Court desires Respondents to respond to Lara’s

21

reply to the answer.” (See Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 29).) Lara has responded

22

(ECF No. 30), stating that he takes no position on Respondents’ motion.

23

The Court will grant Respondents’ motion for clarification (ECF No. 29), and will

24

provide the following clarification. The scheduling order provides an opportunity for

25

Respondents to respond to the reply so that they may respond to any argument in the

26

reply that the Respondents have not previously had an opportunity to address (such as a

27

claim of cause and prejudice relative to a procedural default, for example). It is for

28

Respondents to determine whether a response to the reply is necessary.

1
2
3

It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 29) is
granted, as explained above.
DATED THIS 23rd day of August 2018.

4
5
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2