Bradford v. Bean

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:13-cv-01784
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 JULIUS BRADFORD, Case No. 2:13-cv-01784-RFB-EJY 5 Petitioner, ORDER 6 v. 7 JEREMY BEAN, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 In this habeas corpus action, the pro se petitioner, Julius Bradford, filed a Third Amended 11 Habeas Petition on April 2, 2024. ECF No. 227. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on 12 December 2, 2024. ECF No. 238. Bradford was then to file a response to the motion to dismiss by 13 January 31, 2025, but he filed two Motions for Extension of Time, requesting that the due date for 14 his response be extended to March 25, 2025. ECF Nos. 240, 241. 15 The Court has examined the Motion to Dismiss and determined that it does not address an 16 issue regarding this Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate Bradford’s Third Amended Petition. That is, 17 the Motion to Dismiss does not address whether Bradford’s Third Amended Petition is barred by 18 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (regarding successive petitions) and the caselaw interpreting that provision, 19 Beaty v. Schriro, 554 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2009) and Balbuena v. Sullivan, 980 F.3d 619 (9th Cir. 20 2020). In other words, should Bradford’s Third Amended Petition be treated as a motion to amend, 21 and should the motion to amend be denied as a request to file a successive petition without the 22 authorization of the Court of Appeals, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)? 23 The Court will grant Respondents 45 days to amend their Motion to Dismiss to address 24 this issue. If Respondents determine that section 2244(b) does not apply under the 25 circumstances in this case, their amended motion may simply state as much and reassert the 26 arguments in their original Motion to Dismiss. 27 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents will have 45 1 || jurisdictional issue as described above. The briefing of the amended motion to dismiss will be 2 || governed by the Scheduling Order entered on April 11, 2024 (‘Petitioner will have 60 days ... to 3 || file a response to the motion. Respondents will then have 30 days to file a reply.”). ECF No. 229. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motions for Extension of Time (ECF Nos. 5 || 240 and 241) are DENIED as moot. 6 7 DATED: March 13, 2025 8 om th RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28