Filed: Jan. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge. This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 by a Nevada state prisoner. On December 14, 2011, this Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice Grounds 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Dkt. no. 18.) In the same order, the Court ruled that the petition was a mixed petition, as Grounds 1, 3, and 5 of the petition were unexhausted, bu
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge. This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 by a Nevada state prisoner. On December 14, 2011, this Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice Grounds 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Dkt. no. 18.) In the same order, the Court ruled that the petition was a mixed petition, as Grounds 1, 3, and 5 of the petition were unexhausted, but..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Nevada state prisoner.
On December 14, 2011, this Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice Grounds 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. (Dkt. no. 18.) In the same order, the Court ruled that the petition was a mixed petition, as Grounds 1, 3, and 5 of the petition were unexhausted, but Ground 7 was exhausted. (Id.) The Court gave petitioner the option of abandoning his unexhausted claims and proceeding on his exhausted claims, or in the alternative, to seek a stay under Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). Petitioner moved for the issuance of stay and abeyance order under Rhines v. Weber. (Dkt. no. 19). By order filed March 16, 2012, this Court granted petitioner's motion for a stay and this case was administratively closed. (Dkt. no. 22.)
Petitioner's further state-court proceedings having concluded,1 petitioner has now returned to this Court seeking to reopen this case. (Dkt. no. 26.) Although petitioner's motion to reopen indicates that it was served on respondents, the respondents have not filed a response to petitioner's motion. Good cause appearing, this action is reopened and the Court now sets a further briefing schedule for this action.
It is therefore ordered that petitioner's motion to reopen this action (dkt. no. 26) is granted. The Clerk shall reopen the file in this action.
It is further ordered that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days following the date of entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the remaining grounds of the petition on file (dkt. no. 4).
It is further ordered that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days following service of the answer to file and serve a reply brief. If a dispositive motion is filed in response to the petition, the parties shall brief the motion in accordance with Local Rule 7-2.
It is further ordered that the parties shall send courtesy (paper) copies of any further exhibits filed in this action to the Reno Division of this Court. Courtesy copies shall be mailed to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, and directed to the attention of "Staff Attorney" on the outside of the mailing address label.
