Kravetz v. State of Nevada et al
ORDER - Petitioner's Motion for Copies (ECF No. 33 ) and Motion Requesting Information Regarding Whistleblower Complaint (ECF No. 36 ) are both stricken. Petitioner's Motion to Extend Time to File a Reply (ECF No. 35 ) is granted. Petitioner will file the reply to the Answer (ECF No. 34 ) within 30 days of the date of this order. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/13/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
Case 3:19-cv-00518-MMD-WGC Document 37 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:19-cv-00518-MMD-WGC
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
This is Petitioner Richard Kravetz’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus matter.
Petitioner filed two pro se documents (ECF Nos. 33, 36) though Petitioner is represented
by counsel. However, a party who is represented by counsel cannot file pleadings or any
other documents pro se without leave of the Court. LR IA 11-6(a).1 Accordingly, the pro
se documents will be stricken as fugitive documents. Good cause appearing, Petitioner’s
motion, filed by Petitioner’s counsel, for extension of time to file a reply in support of the
answer (ECF No. 35), is granted.
It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion for copies (ECF No. 33) and motion
requesting information regarding whistleblower complaint (ECF No. 36) are both stricken.
It is further ordered that Petitioner’s motion to extend time to file a reply (ECF No.
35) is granted. Petitioner will file the reply within 30 days of the date of this order.
DATED THIS 13th Day of October 2020.
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court further notes the second pro se filing (ECF No. 36) is styled as a motion
for information regarding a whistleblower complaint and refers to allegations of extortion
and bank fraud. It appears to be unrelated to this habeas matter.
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?