Tripp v. Nevada State Parole Board, 3:16-cv-00006-MMD-VPC. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180327i16
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (ECF No. 7) is pending before the Court for consideration on the merits. Respondents have answered the petition (ECF No. 9), and petitioner has replied (ECF No. 13). Petitioner asserts several grounds for relief, including equal protection, due process, double jeopardy, and ex post facto. Respondents have failed to respond to petitioner's ex post facto claim, contained i
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (ECF No. 7) is pending before the Court for consideration on the merits. Respondents have answered the petition (ECF No. 9), and petitioner has replied (ECF No. 13). Petitioner asserts several grounds for relief, including equal protection, due process, double jeopardy, and ex post facto. Respondents have failed to respond to petitioner's ex post facto claim, contained in..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 7) is pending before the Court for consideration on the merits. Respondents have answered the petition (ECF No. 9), and petitioner has replied (ECF No. 13).
Petitioner asserts several grounds for relief, including equal protection, due process, double jeopardy, and ex post facto. Respondents have failed to respond to petitioner's ex post facto claim, contained in Ground Four of the petition. The state courts also failed to address this claim, despite it being raised in the petitioner's state court habeas petition. Accordingly, this Court must consider petitioner's ex post facto claim de novo, but it lacks sufficient information to do so.
It is therefore ordered that respondents must file a supplemental answer to the petition, addressing the ex post facto claim, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. In answering this claim, respondents must provide, if they are available, the parole guidelines as they existed in 1991. Petitioner will then have thirty (30) days after service of the supplemental answer within which to file a supplemental reply, if any.
Source: Leagle
