ACKERMAN v. SKOLNICK, 2:10-cv-01088-GMN-GWF. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120405c65
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO, District Judge. This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in which Petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding with representation of counsel. On March 5, 2012, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 31.) The Court concluded that the ineffective assistance claim concerning the failure to raise prosecutorial misconduct on appeal in Ground 1, Subpart 5; Ground 1, Subpart 7, a
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO, District Judge. This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 in which Petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding with representation of counsel. On March 5, 2012, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 31.) The Court concluded that the ineffective assistance claim concerning the failure to raise prosecutorial misconduct on appeal in Ground 1, Subpart 5; Ground 1, Subpart 7, an..
More
ORDER
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, District Judge.
This is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which Petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding with representation of counsel. On March 5, 2012, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Respondents' Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 31.) The Court concluded that the ineffective assistance claim concerning the failure to raise prosecutorial misconduct on appeal in Ground 1, Subpart 5; Ground 1, Subpart 7, and Ground 3(B) are unexhausted. (Id.) Petitioner has filed a Declaration abandoning these unexhausted claims. (ECF No. 32.) Therefore, the Court sets a briefing schedule on the merits of the remaining grounds in the Petition.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the ineffective assistance claim concerning the failure to raise prosecutorial misconduct on appeal in Ground 1, Subpart 5; Ground 1, Subpart 7, and Ground 3(B) are DISMISSED as abandoned.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall have forty five (45) days from the date of entry of this Order within which to file an answer to the Petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall have forty five (45) days after service of the answer to file and serve a reply.
Source: Leagle
