Kie v. Garrett

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 22, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00709
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 DONALD KIE, JR., Case No. 3:20-cv-00709-RCJ-CLB

4 Petitioner, ORDER v. 5 WARDEN GARRETT , et al., 6 Respondents. 7 8 This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Currently before the court are (1) 9 the respondents’ two motions (ECF Nos. 36 and 37) to extend the deadline for filing their 10 response to the third amended petition; (2) the petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 41) to extend the 11 deadline for filing a response to the respondents’ motion to dismiss; and (3) a pro se motion 12 (ECF No. 42) filed by the petitioner rather than his counsel. 13 Good causing appearing, the respondents’ motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 36 14 and 37) will be granted nunc pro tunc and their motion to dismiss will be deemed timely filed. 15 Good cause appearing, the petitioner’s unopposed motion for extension of time (ECF No. 41) 16 will also be granted giving the petitioner until August 26, 2022, to file a response to the motion 17 to dismiss. The petitioner’s pro se motion (ECF No. 42) will, however, be stricken as it is filed in 18 violation of LR IA 11-6. 19 “It is well established that district courts have inherent power to control their docket,” 20 including the power to strike improperly filed items from the docket. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR 21 Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). The Local Rules of Practice state, in relevant part: 22 A party who has appeared by attorney cannot while so represented appear or act in the case. This means that once an attorney makes an appearance on 23 behalf of a party, that party may not personally file a document with the court; all filings must thereafter be made by the attorney . . . . 24 25 LR IA 11-6(a). This rule further states that an “attorney who has appeared for a party must be 26 recognized by the court and all the parties as having control of the client’s case.” Id. 27 Because counsel is appointed to represent the petitioner, the petitioner may not personally 28 file motions or documents with the court and the court will order the motion (ECF No. 42) 1 || stricken from the court’s docket. 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the respondents’ motions (ECF Nos. 36 and 37) to 3 || extend the deadline to file a response to the third amended petition are GRANTED NUNC PRO 4 || TUNC. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 38) is deemed timely filed. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s motion (ECF No. 41) to extend the 6 || deadline to file a response to the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Petitioner has until August 7 || 26, 2022, to file a response to the motion to dismiss. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is ordered to STRIKE the 9 || petitioner’s pro se motion (ECF No. 42) from the court’s docket. 10 Dated: August 22, 2022. 1 z£ Yom 12 ROBERT C.JG@RES 3 UNITED ST S DISTRICT JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28