Mortensen v. Nevens et al
Filing
59
ORDER Granting 58 Motion for Clarification. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's response to 57 Order shall be filed within 30 days of entry of this order. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 2/8/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RONALD LAWRENCE MORTENSEN,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DWIGHT D. NEVEN, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
____________________________________/
2:11-CV-00266-KJD-CWH
ORDER
13
14
This action is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by petitioner
15
Ronald Mortensen, a Nevada prisoner, who is proceeding with the assistance of counsel. Before the
16
Court is petitioner’s motion for clarification of this Court’s Order entered January 28, 2013 (ECF No.
17
57). Although respondents have not had an opportunity to file a response to the motion, the Court finds
18
no good reason to delay. In response to the petitioner’s inquiries, the Court offers this clarification.
19
Ground 1-1, subparts (B) and (C) as set forth in the Court’s order at page 6, and identified on
20
page 24 of the First Amended Petition (Amd. Petn.) as Ground 1, (pretrial level) subparts (B) and (C)
21
are unexhausted. Petitioner did not properly present his claim that trial counsel failed to obtain copies
22
of video tapes from the T-Bird Lounge, the ATM, and other locations and did not interview witnesses
23
to “establish whether Brady was wearing his glasses on the night in question....” Amd. Petn., p. 24, ll.
24
19-23. Neither did petitioner fairly present a challenge to “pretrial identification of Mortensen as being
25
so impermissibly suggestive....” Amd. Petn., pp. 24-25, ll. 24-18.
26
1
2
Ground 1-1 subpart (F)(3) claiming that counsel failed to file a motion to “sequester the jury....”
is also unexhausted. See Amd. Petn. pp. 30-31, ll. 22-7.
3
Ground 1-2 (counsel during trial) subparts (L)(1)-(4) as outlined in the Court order at page 8,
4
(“Counsel failed to offer jury instructions regarding [1] mere presence, [2] regarding eyewitness
5
identifications, [3] regarding the credibility of drug users or addicts, [4] regarding intoxication to negate
6
elements of a crime...”) and found in the Amd. Petn. on pages 42-44, (counsel’s performance during
7
trial) are unexhausted. Subpart 5 referenced in the Court’s Order, claiming that counsel did not offer
8
jury instructions on the definition of premeditate and deliberate, is exhausted.1
9
10
11
12
13
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion for Clarification (ECF No. 58) is
GRANTED, and the Order entered January 28, 2013 (ECF No. 57), is clarified as outlined above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s response to the January 28, 2013, Order shall
be filed within thirty days of entry of this Order.
DATED: February 8, 2013
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
This subpart (L)(5) is the same as petitioner’s ground 1-2 (counsel during trial), subpart L(2) found on
page 43 of the Amd. Petn.
26
2
]]>
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?
