Wright v. Williams

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 LAMARTICE WRIGHT, Case No. 2:18-cv-02136-RFB-VCF

8 Petitioner, ORDER

9 v.

10 KYLE OLSEN, et al.,

11 Respondents.

13 On August 9, 2021, the Court granted, in part, Respondents’ motion to dismiss Petitioner 14 Lamartice Wright’s First Amended Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that (1) Grounds 15 2 and 3 of the First Amended Petition were unexhausted and (2) Wright had not demonstrated 16 good cause to excuse the anticipatory procedural default of those grounds. (ECF No. 44). 17 Thereafter, following instructions from the Court, Wright voluntarily abandoned Grounds 2 and 3. 18 (ECF No. 46). The Court dismissed those grounds. (ECF No. 47). Later, on August 24, 2022, the 19 Court denied the First-Amended Petition. (ECF No. 57). Judgment was entered. (ECF No. 58). 20 Wright appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that “the 21 district court erred in rejecting Wright’s . . . argument that [Grounds 2 and 3] should be deemed 22 technically exhausted based on procedural default, and that he could overcome the default under 23 Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012).” (ECF No. 65 at 2). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth 24 Circuit “vacate[d] the district court’s order dismissing Claims 2 and 3 and remand[ed] for the court 25 to conduct the Martinez analysis of Wright’s claim that he can overcome any procedural default 26 because his post-conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to present any arguments 27 supporting Claims 2 and 3 before the state district court.” (Id. at 5–6). 28 ] The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate on January 28, 2025. (ECF 2| No. 67). In accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Court now 3 | vacates its Order dismissing Grounds 2 and 3 and its Merits Order. Further, given that the analysis 4| ofcause under Martinez and prejudice to overcome the anticipatory procedural defaults of Grounds 5 | 2 and 3 is necessarily intertwined with the merits of Grounds 2 and 3, the Court sets a briefing 6 | schedule for Respondents to file an Answer and Wright to file a Reply on the merits on Grounds 7| 2and3. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the January 1, 2022 Order, dismissing Grounds 2 (ECF No. 47) is VACATED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the August 24, 2022 Merits Order, and corresponding 11 | Judgment (ECF Nos. 57, 58) are VACATED. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents have 60 days from the entry of this Order 13 | to file and serve their Answer to Grounds 2 and 3 in accordance with this Order. Wright will then have 30 days to file his Reply. 15 16 DATED: April 14, 2025. 17 18 < < 19 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-