Brown v. Warden Baker et al
Filing
11
ORDER that the Federal Public Defender, through S. Alex Spelman, is appointed as counsel for petitioner; petitioner will have until up to and including 06/24/2018 to file an amended petition and/or seek other appropriate relief; that re spondents will file a response to the amended petition within (60) days of service of an amended petition and that petitioner may file a reply within (30) days of service of an answer; any exhibits filed by the parties must be filed with a separate i ndex of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter; hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits must be forwarded for this case to the Reno Clerks Office. See Order for further details and information. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/26/2018. (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
JASON S. BROWN,
10
11
12
13
Case No. 3:17-cv-00687-MMD-WGC
Petitioner,
v.
ORDER
WARDEN BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.
14
15
Following upon the entry of appearance (ECF No. 10) by the Federal Public
16
Defender, it is ordered that the Federal Public Defender, through S. Alex Spelman, Esq.,
17
is appointed as counsel for petitioner pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). Counsel
18
will represent petitioner in all federal proceedings related to this matter, including any
19
appeals or certiorari proceedings, unless allowed to withdraw.
20
It further is ordered that petitioner will have until up to and including one hundred
21
twenty (120) days from entry of this order within which to file an amended petition and/or
22
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
24
period and/or of a basis for tolling during the time period established. Petitioner at all times
25
remains responsible for calculating the running of the federal limitation period and timely
26
asserting claims, without regard to any deadlines established or extensions granted
27
herein. That is, by setting a deadline to amend the petition and/or by granting any
28
extension thereof, the Court makes no finding or representation that the petition, any
1
amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained therein are not subject to dismissal as
2
untimely. See Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225, 1235 (9th Cir. 2013).
3
It further is ordered that respondents must file a response to the amended petition,
4
including potentially by motion to dismiss, within sixty (60) days of service of an amended
5
petition and that petitioner may file a reply within thirty (30) days of service of an answer.
6
The response and reply time to any motion filed by either party, including a motion filed
7
in lieu of a pleading, will be governed instead by Local Rule LR 7-2(b).
8
It is further ordered that any procedural defenses raised by respondents to the
9
counseled amended petition must be raised together in a single consolidated motion to
10
dismiss. In other words, the Court does not wish to address any procedural defenses
11
raised herein either in seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or
12
embedded in the answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such motion to dismiss will
13
be subject to potential waiver. Respondents must not file a response in this case that
14
consolidates their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except
15
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If
16
respondents do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they shall
17
do so within the single motion to dismiss not in the answer; and (b) they shall specifically
18
direct their argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett
19
v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses,
20
including exhaustion, shall be included with the merits in an answer. All procedural
21
defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by motion to dismiss.
22
It is further ordered that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents must
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 is further ordered that any state court record and related exhibits filed herein by
26
either petitioner or respondents must be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying
27
the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further will be identified
28
by the number or numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. If the exhibits filed will span
2
1
more than one ECF Number in the record, the first document under each successive ECF
2
Number must be either another copy of the index, a volume cover page, or some other
3
document serving as a filler, so that each exhibit under the ECF Number thereafter will
4
be listed under an attachment number (i.e., Attachment 1, 2, etc.).
5
6
7
It is further ordered that the hard copy of any exhibits filed by either counsel must
be delivered — for this case — to the Reno Clerk's Office.
DATED THIS 26th day of March 2018.
8
9
10
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?