From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Entrikin v. Warden

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Nov 29, 2010
2: 10-cv-00188-RLH-LRL (D. Nev. Nov. 29, 2010)

Opinion

2: 10-cv-00188-RLH-LRL.

November 29, 2010


ORDER


Petitioner, a state prisoner, is proceeding with representation of counsel in this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Counsel appeared in this action on October 28, 2010. (Docket #8.)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall file and serve a second amended petition in this action within forty-five days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of filing of the second amended petition within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the second amended petition. In their answer or other response, respondents shall address any claims presented by petitioner in his petition as well as any claims presented by petitioner in any Statement of Additional Claims. Respondents shall raise all potential affirmative defenses in the initial responsive pleading, including lack of exhaustion and procedural default. Successive motions to dismiss will not be entertained. If an answer is filed, respondents shall comply with the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Proceedings in the United States District Courts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. If an answer is filed, petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of service of the answer to file a reply.

DATED this 29th day of November, 2010.


Summaries of

Entrikin v. Warden

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Nov 29, 2010
2: 10-cv-00188-RLH-LRL (D. Nev. Nov. 29, 2010)
Case details for

Entrikin v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E. ENTRIKIN, Petitioner, v. NDOP WARDEN, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Nov 29, 2010

Citations

2: 10-cv-00188-RLH-LRL (D. Nev. Nov. 29, 2010)