Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wirth v. LeGrand, 2:17-cv-00027-RFB-VCF. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180327h91 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2018
Summary: ORDER RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II , District Judge . Charles Wirth's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 is before the court on respondents' motion for leave to file a supplement to their motion to dismiss and/or to withdraw the motion. Respondents explain that, apparently due to a docketing error, they did not review all grounds that Wirth raises, and therefore, their motion to dismiss is or may be incomplete (ECF No. 27). In the interests of clarity and ef
More

ORDER

Charles Wirth's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the court on respondents' motion for leave to file a supplement to their motion to dismiss and/or to withdraw the motion. Respondents explain that, apparently due to a docketing error, they did not review all grounds that Wirth raises, and therefore, their motion to dismiss is or may be incomplete (ECF No. 27). In the interests of clarity and efficiency, respondents shall be permitted to withdraw the motion to dismiss without prejudice to filing a new motion to dismiss.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' motion to withdraw motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) is GRANTED. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is WITHDRAWN.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall file a renewed motion to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the petition, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition, with any other requests for relief by respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for judicial notice (ECF No. 14) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' two motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 16 and 28) are both DENIED as moot.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer