Gonzales v. Baker et al
Filing
24
ORDER that the Respondents are to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Petition (ECF No. 21 ) by 8/26/2019; petitioner will have 45 days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/27/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
***
5
DAMIAN MICHAEL GONZALES,
Petitioner,
6
Case No. 3:18-cv-00058-MMD-CBC
ORDER
v.
7
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
8
Respondents.
9
10
Petitioner has filed a first amended petition (ECF No. 21). The Court has reviewed
11
it under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
12
Courts. The Court will direct Respondents to respond to the first amended petition.
13
It is therefore ordered that Respondents will have 60 days from the date of entry
14
of this order to answer or otherwise respond to the first amended petition (ECF No. 21).
15
Respondents must raise all potential affirmative defenses in an initial motion to dismiss,
16
including untimeliness, lack of exhaustion, and procedural default. The Court will not
17
entertain successive motions to dismiss.
18
It is further ordered that if Respondents file and serve an answer, then they must
19
comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
20
District Courts. Petitioner then will have 45 days from the date on which the answer is
21
served to file a reply.
22
It is further ordered that if Respondents file and serve a motion, then Petitioner will
23
have 45 days from the date of service of the motion to file a response to the motion.
24
Respondents then will have 21 days from the date of service of the response to file a
25
reply.
26
DATED THIS 27th day of June 2019.
27
28
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?