Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marquez v. McDaniel, 3:15-cv-00492-MMD-VPC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180813a30 Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 10, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 10, 2018
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . The Court dismissed this action for untimeliness, but the Court did not address Respondents' other arguments. (ECF No. 50.) The court of appeals reversed, finding that the action is timely under Smith v. Williams, 871 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2017). Respondents will need to file a new answer or other response to the amended petition (ECF No. 14). It is therefore ordered that Respondents will have forty-five (45) days from the date of entry of this order
More

ORDER

The Court dismissed this action for untimeliness, but the Court did not address Respondents' other arguments. (ECF No. 50.) The court of appeals reversed, finding that the action is timely under Smith v. Williams, 871 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2017). Respondents will need to file a new answer or other response to the amended petition (ECF No. 14).

It is therefore ordered that Respondents will have forty-five (45) days from the date of entry of this order to answer or otherwise respond to the amended petition (ECF No. 14).

It is further ordered that if Respondents file and serve an answer, they must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner will then have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply.

It is further ordered that if Respondents file and serve a motion, Petitioner will have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the motion to file a response to the motion. Respondents will then have seven (7) days from the date of service of the response to file a reply.

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