United States District Court, D. Nevada
SCREENING ORDER , [ECF 5,
petitioner and adjudicated habitual criminal Rodney Lavelle
Taylor is serving a 10-years-to-life sentence after he was
convicted of second-degree kidnapping. He petitions for
a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging
that he was denied effective assistance of
counsel. I review his second motion for appointment
of counsel,  and I screen his amended
petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases.
second motion for appointment of counsel, which is another
form motion like his first, does not change my mind. So, I
deny his appointment-of-counsel motion for the same reasons
that I stated in my prior order. And I find that Taylor has
pled viable bases for habeas relief, so I order that it be
served on respondents.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Taylor's second motion for
appointment of counsel [ECF No. 6] is
Clerk of Court is directed to
electronically SERVE Taylor's amended
petition [ECF No. 5] on the Attorney General
of the State of Nevada along with a copy of this order and
regenerated notices of electronic filing of the remaining
filings in this case.
FURTHER ORDERED that respondents have until July 5,
2018, to RESPOND to the petition. Any response filed
must comply with the remaining provisions below, which are
tailored to this particular case based on my screening of the
matter and entered under Habeas Rule 5.
FURTHER ORDERED that any procedural defenses raised by
respondents in this case must be raised together in a single,
consolidated motion to dismiss. Successive motions and
procedural defenses raised in the answer will not be
entertained, and procedural defenses that are not included in
the dismissal motion will be deemed waived. Respondents may
not file a response in this case that consolidates their
procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the
merits, except under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) as to any
unexhausted claims clearly lacking merit. If respondents do
seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 2254(b)(2):
(a) they must do so within the single dismissal motion, not
in the answer; and (b) they must specifically direct their
argument to the dismissal standard under § 2254(b)(2) as
set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 406 F.3d 614,
623-24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses,
including exhaustion, may be included with the merits of an
answer-instead, they must be raised in a single, consolidated
motion to dismiss.
FURTHER ORDERED that, in any answer filed on the merits,
respondents must specifically cite to and address the
applicable state-court written decision and
state-court-record materials, if any, regarding each claim
within the response to that claim.
FURTHER ORDERED that respondents must file a set of
state-court exhibits relevant to their response to the
petition. All state-court record exhibits filed in this case
must be filed with a separate index of exhibits identifying
the exhibits by number. The CM/ECF attachments that are filed
in chronological order and must be identified by the number
or numbers of the exhibits in the attachments, in the same
manner as in No. 3:06-cv-00087-ECF-VPC, ## 25-71. The purpose
of this provision is to permit the reviewing court to be able
to quickly determine from the face of the electronic docket
sheet which numbered exhibits are filed in which attachments.
Counsel must send a hard copy of all exhibits filed in this
case to the Reno Clerk's Office.
FURTHER ORDERED that Taylor will have 30 days from the date
of service of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other
response to mail a reply or response to the Clerk for filing.
FURTHER ORDERED that all requests for relief must be
presented by a motion satisfying the requirements of Rule
7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No. action will
be taken based on a letter. Legal advice or instruction will
not be provided.
 ECF No. 5 at 2.
Id. at 3-11.