TALLEY v. WILLIAMS, 3:13-cv-00573-MMD-VPC. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20141106c57
Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge. The Court ordered respondents to answer or otherwise respond to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus within thirty (30) days from the date of electronic service of the re-filed petition (dkt. no. 13) Respondents have not complied with the Court's order within the allotted time. Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 14). The application is moot because the Court already has granted petitioner leave to proceed
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge. The Court ordered respondents to answer or otherwise respond to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus within thirty (30) days from the date of electronic service of the re-filed petition (dkt. no. 13) Respondents have not complied with the Court's order within the allotted time. Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 14). The application is moot because the Court already has granted petitioner leave to proceed i..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
The Court ordered respondents to answer or otherwise respond to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus within thirty (30) days from the date of electronic service of the re-filed petition (dkt. no. 13) Respondents have not complied with the Court's order within the allotted time.
Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 14). The application is moot because the Court already has granted petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. no. 3.)
Petitioner has submitted another motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 15). Petitioner has presented no reason why the Court should depart from its denial of his earlier motion for appointment of counsel. (Dkt. no. 3.)
It is therefore ordered that respondents shall have ten (10) days from the date that this order is entered to comply with the Court's order (dkt. no. 11) or to show cause in writing why such compliance is impossible.
It is further ordered that petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 14) is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (dkt. no. 15) is denied.
Source: Leagle
