Hamilton v. McDaniel

Full title: JOHNNY EDWARD HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. E.K. McDANIEL, et al., Respondents

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: May 31, 2011

Case No. 3:06-CV-00273-PMP-(VPC) (D. Nev. May. 31, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 3:06-CV-00273-PMP-(VPC).

May 31, 2011

ORDER

PHILIP PRO, District Judge

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this court's denial of the first amended petition (#21) and remanded for a determination whether petitioner's counsel failed to consult with petitioner about a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. This was part of the claim in ground 3 of the first amended petition (#21). This court did not consider the issue whether counsel failed to consult with petitioner about a direct appeal because this court determined that that part of ground 3 was not exhausted. Order (#41). Further briefing will be necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of entry of this order to file and serve a supplemental answer on the issue of whether counsel failed to consult with petitioner about a direct appeal from his judgment of conviction. Petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the date of service of the supplemental answer to file and serve a supplemental reply.