Howard v. Baker, 3:16-cv-00631-RCJ-VPC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190522d53
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 21, 2019
Latest Update: May 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . The court found that part of ground 4 of the first amended petition (ECF No. 14) was partially unexhausted. ECF No. 45. The court also noted that ground 3, a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, likely is without merit unless compelling evidence supporting the claim existed in the state-court record. Id. Petitioner has filed a notice (ECF No. 46) abandoning ground 3 and the unexhausted part of ground 4. Good cause appearing; IT THEREFORE IS ORD
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . The court found that part of ground 4 of the first amended petition (ECF No. 14) was partially unexhausted. ECF No. 45. The court also noted that ground 3, a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, likely is without merit unless compelling evidence supporting the claim existed in the state-court record. Id. Petitioner has filed a notice (ECF No. 46) abandoning ground 3 and the unexhausted part of ground 4. Good cause appearing; IT THEREFORE IS ORDE..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
The court found that part of ground 4 of the first amended petition (ECF No. 14) was partially unexhausted. ECF No. 45. The court also noted that ground 3, a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, likely is without merit unless compelling evidence supporting the claim existed in the state-court record. Id. Petitioner has filed a notice (ECF No. 46) abandoning ground 3 and the unexhausted part of ground 4. Good cause appearing;
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that respondents must file and serve an answer to the remaining claims within forty-five (45) days of the date of entry of this order. The answer must comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner may file a reply within forty-five (45) days of the date of service of the answer.
Source: Leagle
