Brandon Jovan Hill v. The State of Nevada

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01221
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 BRANDON JOVAN HILL, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01221-GMN-MDC

9 Petitioner Order Setting Briefing Schedule

10 v.

11 THE STATE OF NEVADA,

12 Respondent.

13 The Court previously granted Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Brandon Jovan 14 Hill’s pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 21). The 15 Petition was dismissed with leave to file an amended petition. Hill has now filed a First- 16 Amended Petition (ECF No. 28). The Court therefore sets a briefing schedule. 17 It is therefore Ordered that Respondents file a response to the First-Amended 18 Petition (ECF No. 28), including potentially by Motion to Dismiss, within 60 days of 19 service of the Petition, with any requests for relief by Petitioner by motion otherwise 20 being subject to the normal briefing schedule under the Local Rules. Any response filed 21 is to comply with the remaining provisions below, which are entered pursuant to Habeas 22 Rule 5. 23 1 It is further Ordered that any procedural defenses raised by Respondents in this be raised together in a single consolidated Motion to Dismiss. In other words, the Court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein either in seriatum fashion in multiple successive Motions to Dismiss or embedded in the Answer. Procedural defenses omitted from such Motion to Dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. Respondents should not file a response in this case that consolidates their 7|| procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except pursuant to 28 8]|U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If Respondents seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they will do so within single Motion to Dismiss not in the Answer; and (b) they will specifically direct their 11}}argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. 12|| Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623-24 (9"" Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses, 13]|including exhaustion, should be included with the merits in an Answer. All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, instead must be raised by Motion to Dismiss. 15 It is further Ordered that, in any Answer filed on the merits, Respondents 16|| specifically cite to and address the applicable state court written decision and state 17|| court record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to that claim. 18 It is further Ordered that Petitioner has 45 days from service of the Answer, 19|| Motion to Dismiss, or other response to file a Reply or Opposition, with any other requests for relief by Respondents by motion otherwise being subject to the normal 21|| briefing schedule under the Local Rules. 22 DATED: 21 October 2025. 23 “gk DISTRICT JUDGE