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)

Download PDF
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?