WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS, 3:16-cv-00505-MMD-VPC. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20170725b76
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, by Mathew Lee Williams, a Nevada prisoner. On July 21, 2017, Williams filed a "Motion Requesting Judicial Review and Action" (ECF No. 44). In that motion, Williams asks the Court to review his amended habeas petition and take judicial action upon it. The scheduling order in this case (ECF No. 38) requires respondents to respond to Williams' amended petition
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, by Mathew Lee Williams, a Nevada prisoner. On July 21, 2017, Williams filed a "Motion Requesting Judicial Review and Action" (ECF No. 44). In that motion, Williams asks the Court to review his amended habeas petition and take judicial action upon it. The scheduling order in this case (ECF No. 38) requires respondents to respond to Williams' amended petition b..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by Mathew Lee Williams, a Nevada prisoner.
On July 21, 2017, Williams filed a "Motion Requesting Judicial Review and Action" (ECF No. 44). In that motion, Williams asks the Court to review his amended habeas petition and take judicial action upon it.
The scheduling order in this case (ECF No. 38) requires respondents to respond to Williams' amended petition by September 28, 2017. (See Order entered June 30, 2017 (ECF No. 38) at 4.) Beyond that, the scheduling order states:
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 shall have 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 shall, thereafter, have thirty (30) days to file a reply in support of the motion.
(Id.) This schedule will control the further proceedings in this case. The question of the merits of the claims in Williams' habeas petition is not yet before the Court.
It is therefore ordered that petitioner's Motion Requesting Judicial Review and Action (ECF No. 44) is denied.
Source: Leagle
