Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rodas v. Filson, 3:16-cv-00546-MMD-VPC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180522a70 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 18, 2018
Latest Update: May 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . On March 9, 2018, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss with respect to Ground One of Petitioner's habeas petition. (ECF No. 13.) Respondents subsequently filed a "withdrawal of motion to dismiss" (ECF No. 17) in recognition of this Court's prior order (ECF No. 10) dismissing Ground One. It is therefore ordered that Respondents will have sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order to appear in this action, and to answer or otherwise respond t
More

ORDER

On March 9, 2018, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss with respect to Ground One of Petitioner's habeas petition. (ECF No. 13.) Respondents subsequently filed a "withdrawal of motion to dismiss" (ECF No. 17) in recognition of this Court's prior order (ECF No. 10) dismissing Ground One.

It is therefore ordered that Respondents will have sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Order to appear in this action, and to answer or otherwise respond to the Petition.

It is further ordered that if Respondents file an answer, Petitioner will have sixty (60) days from the date on which the answer is served on him to file and serve a reply. If Respondents file a motion to dismiss, Petitioner will have sixty (60) days from the date on which the motion is served on him to file and serve a response to the motion to dismiss, and Respondents will, thereafter, have thirty (30) days to file a reply in support of the motion.

It is further ordered that any additional state court record exhibits filed herein by either Petitioner or Respondents must be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed further must be identified by the number or numbers of the exhibits in the attachment. The hard copy of any additional state court record exhibits must be forwarded—for this case—to the staff attorneys in Reno.

It is further ordered that Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 16) is denied.

It is further ordered that Respondents' motion for extension of time (ECF No. 18) is 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