Duda v. Neven et al
| Chester Duda |
| Attorney General of the State of Nevada and D. Neven |
| 2:2016cv01176 |
| May 25, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Carl W. Hoffman |
| James C. Mahan |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
35
ORDER that the clerk, if she has not already done so prior to the docketing of this order, shall treat the application for a certificate of appealability also as a notice of appeal also filed on June 27, 2018, and shall docket and process the appeal. FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent submitted to this court, 34 Motion/Application for Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. (E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.) Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
32
ORDER that, following upon the earlier dismissal of the original petition with prejudice as untimely, the supplemental petition in this matter also shall be DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely. FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Reasonable jurists would not find the dismissal of this action as untimely to be debatable or wrong, for the reasons discussed in the prior order (ECF No. 25 ) and this order. With regard to the current order, petitioners alleged reliance on advice from counsel in another case would not explain, as a matter of fact, the late filing of either the original or supplemental federal petition. The advice provided in fact would not lead to an objectively reasonable belief that petitioner ha d until 2016 to file timely federal pleadings. In all events, alleged miscalculation or erroneous advice by counsel does not provide a basis for equitable tolling under controlling law.The clerk of court shall enter final judgment accordingly, in favor of respondents and against petitioner, dismissing this action with prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER that 16 respondents' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and that the original petition is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely. FURTHER ORDERED that 15 respondents' unopposed Motion to Extend the Time to File the Motion to Dismiss is granted nunc pro tunc. FURTHER ORDERED that 10 , 11 , and 12 petitioner's pending Motions all are GRANTED to the extent and only to the extent that the court grants petitioner leave to file the proposed pleading (ECF No. 10-1) as a superceding pleading presenting only the claims alleged therein with any and all prior claims no longer being before the court as per its prior order (ECF No. 9 ). FURTHER ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of entry of this order, petitioner s hall show cause in writing why all claims in the supplemental petition should not be dismissed with prejudice as time-barred. FURTHER ORDERED that all assertions of fact made by petitioner in response to this show-cause order must be detailed, must b e specific as to time and place, and must be supported by competent evidence.FURTHER ORDERED that, if petitioner files a response to the show-cause order, respondents may file an opposition or other response thereto within thirty (30) days of serv ice of the response. If, and only if, respondents file a response, petitioner may file a reply within thirty (30) days of service of the response. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/29/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER Granting 19 Motion to Extend Time to Respond re 16 Motion to Dismiss. ( Responses due by 7/7/2017.) Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/14/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER that Petitioner's 8 Motion to Submit Additional Claims is Denied without prejudice. Petitioner has 60 days from entry of this order to file a motion for leave to amend the petition accompanied by the proposed amended petition. Respon dents' deadline for responding to the originalpetition is extended 120 days from entry of this order. The deadline will be automatically vacated if Petitioner timely files a motion for leave to amend. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/22/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - 2 copies of 2254 form/1 set of 2254 instructions, and 4 mailed to Petitioner - SLD)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER granting 6 Motion to Extend Time. Attorney General of the State of Nevada answer due 12/6/2016; D. Neven answer due 12/6/2016. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/12/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER that 1 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall FILE and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) upon the respondents. The clerk of court SHALL ADD attorney general Adam Paul Laxalt to the CM/ECF docket sheet as counsel for respondents. FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have forty-five (45) days from the entry of this order within which to answer, or otherwise respond to, the petition. FURTHER ORDERED that 2 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/23/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
