Riley v. Weber et al
ORDER: Respondents shall immediately comply with LR 56.1A and shall provide all state court criminal and habeas records by January 17, 2017. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy on 1/13/2017. (CG)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
JAMES DUANE RILEY,
DOUGLAS WEBER, MIKE DURFEE STATE
PRISON, SPRINGFIELD, SD; AND MARTY
JACKLEY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
Pending is James Duane Riley’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket 16. Respondents have filed a motion for
summary judgment re: claims 1.a, 1.b and 1.c and supporting brief. Docket 22.
Within that document, respondents assert they will file their statement of undisputed
material facts with their reply brief. Id., n. 1. Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1.A, the
moving party’s motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by “a separate,
short, and concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party
contends there is no genuine issue to be tried . . .” Additionally, pursuant to this
court’s order dated December 6, 2016, respondents are reminded of their
responsibility to file with the federal clerk of court all state court criminal and habeas
records on or before January 15, 2017. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Respondents shall submit all state court criminal and habeas
records for filing with the clerk of court no later than January 17, 2017.
It is further ORDERED that Respondents shall immediately comply with Local
Rule 56.1.A by filing a statement of undisputed facts.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s time for responding to Respondents’
motion for summary judgment shall not begin to run until the Respondents have
served and filed their statement of undisputed facts.
DATED this 13th day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
VERONICA L. DUFFY
United States Magistrate 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?