Opinion
3:12-cv-00218-LRH-VPC
11-19-2012
ROBERT M. REIGER, Petitioner, v. DWIGHT NEVENS, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by a Nevada state prisoner. On September 25, 2012, the Court entered an order directing respondents to file an answer or other response to the petition. (ECF No. 11).
Petitioner has filed a motion for leave to amend his habeas petition. (ECF No. 15). Regarding plaintiff's motion to amend, Rule 15 provides that a party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading, or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). There being no responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion brought in this action to date, plaintiff is entitled to file an amended petition. Plaintiff's motion to amend the petition is granted. This action shall proceed on the first amended petition (ECF No. 15-1), the memorandum of points and authorities (ECF No. 15-2), and the supplemental petition (ECF No. 15-3 & 15-4). Respondents are directed to respond to the same, as specified at the conclusion of this order.
Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's order denying his motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 14). This Court previously denied petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 6). In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner has not identified any mistake, intervening change in controlling law, or other factor that would require altering the Court's determination that petitioner is not entitled to the appointment of counsel. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is denied.
Petitioner has filed a motion for transportation for a court appearance in this action. (ECF No. 10). At this time, there is no court hearing requiring petitioner's presence. As such, petitioner's motion for transport is denied.
Finally, respondents have filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the petition, upon the Court's resolution of petitioner's motion to amend. (ECF No. 16). Good cause appearing, respondents' motion is granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to amend the petition (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action SHALL PROCEED on the first amended petition (ECF No. 15-1), the memorandum of points and authorities (ECF No. 15-2), and the supplemental petition (ECF No. 15-3 & 15-4).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. Respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the first amended petition (ECF No. 15-1), the memorandum of points and authorities (ECF No. 15-2), and the supplemental petition (ECF No. 15-3 & 15-4). In their answer or other response, respondents shall address all claims presented in the petition. 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any state court record exhibits filed by respondents shall be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number or letter. The hard copy of all state court record exhibits shall be forwarded, for this case, to the staff attorneys in the Reno Division of the Clerk of Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for transportation (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
____________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE