Pantano v. Donat et al
Filing
27
ORDERED Rs' answer response due 7/7/2010. FURTHER ORD that any procedural defenses raised by Rs in this case shall be raised together in a single motion to dismiss. FURTHER IS ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, Rs shall specifical ly cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any additional exhibits filed by Rs shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter (as specified herein). IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that given the number and complexity of the claims, P shall have 45 days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 4/22/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 vs. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
T h e rule provides in pertinent part: "If the petition is not dism is s e d [on initial review], the judge m u s t o r d e r the respondent to file an answer, m o tio n , or other response within a fixed tim e , or to take other action [a s ] the judge m a y order."
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ANGELO PANTANO, Petitioner, 3:08-cv-00685-ECR-VPC ORDER
WILLIAM DONAT, et al., Respondents.
This habeas matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 comes before the Court following initial review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the "Habeas Rules") of the amended petition (#20) filed by the Federal Public Defender. Following upon said review, a response will be directed. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that, taking into account the number and complexity of the grounds presented, including subparts, respondents shall have seventy-five (75) days from entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the amended petition, including by motion to dismiss. Any response filed shall comply with the remaining provisions below, which are tailored to this particular case based upon the Court's screening of the amended petition and which are entered pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this case including any defenses as to timeliness and relation back of claims, lack of exhaustion, procedural default, and/or lack of specificity shall be raised together in a single motion to dismiss. Procedural defenses omitted from the motion to dismiss will be subject to potential waiver.2 The respondents shall not file a response in this case that consolidates their procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits, respondents shall specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that any additional exhibits filed by respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further shall be identified by the number or numbers (or letter or letters) of the exhibits in the attachment. Cf. ## 16-18. The purpose of this provision is so that the Court, the parties, and any reviewing court thereafter will be able to quickly determine from the face of the electronic docket sheet which exhibits are filed in which attachments. IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that, again given the number and complexity of the claims, petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. DATED: April 22, 2010
_________________________________ EDWARD C. REED United States District Judge
S e e ,e .g . Morrison v. Mahoney, 399 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005)("Unless a court has ordered o th e r w is e , separate m o tio n s to dism is s m a y be filed asserting different affirm a tiv e defenses.")(em p h a s is a d d e d ).
2
-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?
