Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hanson v. Farwell

United States District Court, D. Nevada

July 19, 2017

MARK A. HANSON, Petitioner,
v.
CRAIG FARWELL, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         In this habeas corpus action, on June 6, 2017, the Court granted petitioner Mark A. Hanson's motion for an evidentiary hearing. (See Order entered June 6, 2017 (ECF No. 127).) On June 26, 2017, pursuant to the Court's order, the parties filed a Joint Proposed Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 128.)

         Also on June 26, 2017, Hanson timely filed a fourth amended habeas petition. (ECF No. 129.) Respondents are to file an answer no later than July 26, 2017, and then Hanson will have twenty (20) days to file a reply. (See Order entered June 6, 2017 (ECF No. 127) (thirty days for answer, and twenty days for reply).)

         On June 30, 2017, the Court entered an order setting a schedule for the evidentiary hearing. (ECF No. 130.) In that order the Court set the evidentiary hearing for December 13 and 14, 2017, and set a schedule for events leading up to the evidentiary hearing. (See Order entered June 30, 2017 (ECF No. 130).)

         On July 12, 2017, Hanson filed an unopposed motion for reconsideration of the June 30, 2017, order. (ECF No. 131.)

         The Court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient, ” so long as the court has jurisdiction. City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis and quotation omitted).

         Hanson requests reconsideration of the dates on which the evidentiary hearing is set, as well as the amount of time reserved for the evidentiary hearing. Hanson states that an expert witness, Dr. Janice Ophoven, is not available to testify in December, and that Dr. Ophoven's testimony is critical and essential, as Dr. Ophoven participated in his state-court litigation and presented a declaration in that case. Hanson informs the Court that the earliest dates on which Dr. Ophoven is available to testify are January 16 through 18, 2018. In light of Hanson's unopposed representations in this regard, the Court will reschedule the evidentiary hearing for January 16 through 18, 2018.

         Hanson also states that his counsel and counsel for the respondents agree that at least three days should be scheduled for this evidentiary hearing. The Court will make that change as well; three days - January 16, 17, and 18, 2018 - will be scheduled for the evidentiary hearing.

         In view of these changes, the Court will also modify the schedule leading up to the evidentiary hearing. The schedule for the evidentiary hearing will be as follows:

         1. Evidentiary Hearing

         The evidentiary hearing will commence on January 16, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., in the courtroom of the undersigned United States District Judge, in Reno, Nevada. The Court has scheduled three days - January 16, 17, and 18, 2018 - for the evidentiary hearing.

         2. First Disclosure of Experts

         The parties will disclose to each other the names of their expert witnesses by September 15, 2017. These disclosures may be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.