Palmer v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 6

ORDER that Clerk directed to file and e-serve the petition ECF No. 1 -1 on the respondents (e-served 12/6/17); Clerk directed to add NV AG as counsel for respondents; respondents to file a response to the petition by 3/6/18; petitione r shall have 45 days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition; any additional state court record exhibits filed herein; the parties SHALL SEND courtesy copies of all exhibits in this case to Reno Staff Attorney. See Order for further details and instructions. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 12/6/2017. (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

KENNETH PALMER,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00644-HDM-WGC

10

Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
NEVADA, STATE OF, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

Petitioner Kenneth Palmer has submitted a pro se petition for writ of habeas

15

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has now paid the filing fee (see ECF No. 5).

16

The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, and it shall be docketed

17

and served on respondents.

18

A petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which

19

petitioner is aware. If petitioner fails to include such a claim in his petition, he may be

20

forever barred from seeking federal habeas relief upon that claim. See 28 U.S.C.

21

§2254(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not included in his

22

petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible, perhaps by means of a

23

motion to amend his petition to add the claim.

24
25
26
27

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall file and ELECTRONICALLY
SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) on the respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall add Adam Paul Laxalt, Nevada
Attorney General, as counsel for respondents.

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall file a response to the petition,
including potentially by motion to dismiss, within ninety (90) days of service of the
petition, with any requests for relief by petitioner by motion otherwise being subject to
the normal briefing schedule under the local rules. Any response filed shall comply with
the remaining provisions below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas Rule 5.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents
in this case shall be raised together in a single consolidated motion to dismiss. In other
words, the court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either
in seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the
answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will be subject to
potential waiver. Respondents shall not file a response in this case that consolidates
their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If
respondents do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall
do so within the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall
specifically direct their argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set
forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no
procedural defenses, including exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an
answer. All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by
motion to dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents
shall specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state
court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from
service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition,
with any other requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to
the normal briefing schedule under the local rules.

28
2

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional state court record exhibits filed
herein by either petitioner or respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits
identifying the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall

4
5
6

be identified by the number of the exhibit in the attachment.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties SHALL SEND courtesy copies of all

7

exhibits in this case to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, directed

8

to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the outside of the mailing address label.

9

Additionally, in the future, all parties shall provide courtesy copies of any additional

10

exhibits submitted to the court in this case, in the manner described above.

11
12

DATED: December 6, 2017.

13
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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