Opinion
3:09-cv-0454-LRH-VPC.
June 30, 2010
ORDER
Lawrence Schwiger, a Nevada prisoner, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 27, 2010, the court appointed the Federal Public Defender to represent petitioner. On June 25, 2010, counsel appeared on behalf of petitioner (docket #34). Petitioner's counsel is Megan C. Hoffman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 411 East Bonneville Ave., Suite 250, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101.
The Court will set a schedule for further proceedings in this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that counsel for petitioner shall meet with petitioner as soon as reasonably possible, if counsel has not already done so, to: (a) review the procedures applicable in cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; (b) discuss and explore with petitioner, as fully as possible, the potential grounds for habeas corpus relief in petitioner's case; and (c) advise petitioner that all possible grounds for habeas corpus relief must be raised at this time in this action and that the failure to do so will likely result in any omitted grounds being barred from future review.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner shall have sixty (60) days to file and serve an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, which shall include all known grounds for relief (both exhausted and unexhausted). Respondents shall have thirty (30) days after service of an amended petition within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the amended petition. If petitioner does not file an amended petition, respondents shall have thirty (30) days from the date on which the amended petition is due within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, petitioner's original petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if and when respondents file an answer, petitioner shall have thirty (30) days after service of the answer to file and serve a reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for respondents shall make available to counsel for petitioner (photocopying costs at the latter's expense), as soon as reasonably possible, copies of whatever portions of the state court record they possess regarding the judgment petitioner is challenging in this case.