From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Litwin v. Neven

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Oct 27, 2011
Case No. 2:11-CV-01616-JCM-(RJJ) (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 2:11-CV-01616-JCM-(RJJ).

October 27, 2011


ORDER


Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1) and a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court finds that petitioner is unable to pay the filing fee. The court has reviewed the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and the court will serve the petition upon respondents for a response.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1) is GRANTED. Petitioner need not pay the filing fee of five dollars ($5.00).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall file the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall add Catherine Cortez Masto, Attorney General for the State of Nevada, as counsel for respondents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall electronically serve upon respondents a copy of the petition. In addition, the clerk shall return to petitioner a copy of the petition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the petition was served to answer or otherwise respond to the petition. If respondents file and serve an answer, then they shall comply with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and then petitioner shall have forty-five (45) days from the date on which the answer is served to file a reply.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that henceforth, petitioner shall serve upon respondents or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon the attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion or other document submitted for consideration by the court. Petitioner shall include with the original paper submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed to the respondents or counsel for the respondents. The court may disregard any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge that has not been filed with the clerk, and any paper received by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the clerk that fails to include a certificate of service.


Summaries of

Litwin v. Neven

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Oct 27, 2011
Case No. 2:11-CV-01616-JCM-(RJJ) (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2011)
Case details for

Litwin v. Neven

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER LITWIN, Petitioner, v. D. W. NEVEN, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Oct 27, 2011

Citations

Case No. 2:11-CV-01616-JCM-(RJJ) (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2011)