Hosino v. Garrett

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Rodney Hosino, Case No. 2:21-cv-02234-GMN-VCF

Petitioner 4 v. Order Directing Response to Petition

5 Tim Garrett, et al.,

Respondents 6

7 Petitioner Rodney Hosino brings this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 8 U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge his 2016 Nevada state-court convictions for lewdness with a minor 9 under 14 and sexual assault with a minor under 141 and has paid the filing fee.2 Having 10 completed a preliminary review of the petition under Habeas Rule 4, the Court will direct the 11 Clerk of Court to docket it3 and serve it on respondents. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to: 13 • FILE and ELECTRONICALLY SERVE the petition (ECF No. 1-1) on the 14 respondents; and 15 16 17 18

19 1 ECF No. 1-1. 2 ECF No. 5. 20 3 Because a petition for federal habeas corpus should include all claims for relief of which 21 petitioner is aware, failure to include such a claim in a petition may result in it being forever barred. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b) (successive petitions). If petitioner is aware of any claim not 22 included in his petition, he should notify the court of that as soon as possible, preferably in a motion to amend his petition to add the claim. 23 1 • ADD Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, as counsel for respondents, and 2 PROVIDE respondents an electronic copy of all items previously filed in this 3 case by regenerating the Notice of Electronic Filing to the office of the AG only.

4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents must file a response to the petition within 5 60 days of service of the petition. Petitioner will then have 60 days from service of the 6 answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. Any other 7 motions will be subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local rules. 8 Any response to the petition must comport with Habeas Rule 5. Additionally: 9 1. Any procedural defenses raised by respondents in this case must be raised together in a

10 single, consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, the court does not wish to 11 address any procedural defenses raised herein either in seriatum fashion in multiple 12 successive motions to dismiss or embedded in the answer. Procedural defenses omitted 13 from the motion to dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. 14 2. Respondents must not file a response in this case that consolidates their procedural 15 defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except under 28 U.S.C.

16 § 2254(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents do seek 17 dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2): (a) they must do so within the 18 single motion to dismiss, not in the answer, and (b) they must specifically direct their 19 argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. 20 Stewart, 406 F.3d 614, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses,

21 including exhaustion, should be included with the merits in an answer. All procedural 22 defenses, including exhaustion, must instead be raised by motion to dismiss. 23 1 3. In any answer filed on the merits, respondents must specifically cite to and address the 2 applicable state-court written decision and state-court record materials, if any, 3 regarding each claim within the response as to that claim.

4 4. Respondents must file the state court exhibits relevant to their response to the petition 5 in chronological order. 6 5. All state court records and exhibits must be filed in accordance with LR IA 10-3 and LR IC 7 2-2 and include a separate index identifying each exhibit by number or letter. The index 8 must be filed in CM/ECF’s document upload screen as the base document to receive the 9 base docket number (e.g., ECF No. 10). Each exhibit must then be filed as an

10 “attachment” to the base document—the index—to receive a sequenced sub-docket 11 number (e.g., Exhibit A (ECF No. 10-1), Exhibit B (ECF No. 10-2), Exhibit C (ECF No. 10-3), 12 and so forth). If the exhibits will span more than one filing, the base document in each 13 successive filing must be either a copy of the index or volume cover page. See LR IC 2- 14 2(a)(3)(A). 15 6. LR IC 2-2(g)’s paper-copies rule is waived for this matter, so paper copies

16 of electronically filed exhibits need not be provided to chambers or to the staff attorney, 17 unless later directed by the court. 18 Dated: January 18, 2022 19 _________________________________ U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro 20

21 22 23