Sonner v.Gittere (DEATH PENALTY) ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * 9 MICHAEL SONNER, Case No. 2:00-cv-01101-KJD-DJA 10 Petitioner, v. ORDER 11 12 WILLIAM GITTERE,1 et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Before the court is petitioner Sonner’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s 16 order denying his prior Rule 60(b) motion. ECF No. 254. For reasons that follow, the 17 motion will be granted. 18 Sonner is a Nevada prisoner sentenced to death. On August 30, 2017, this court 19 entered a final judgment denying Sonner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 232. On June 24, 2019, the court entered an order denying 21 Sonner’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 245) for lack of 22 jurisdiction because the case was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 250. With that 23 same order, however, the court issued an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 indicating it 24 would grant the motion if the Ninth Circuit elected to remand for that purpose. Id. 25 26 1 William Gittere, the current warden of Ely State Prison, replaces his predecessor, Timothy Filson, as the 27 primary respondent in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 1 On June 27, 2019, the Ninth Circuit granted Sonner’s motion for a limited remand 2 || in accordance with this court’s indicative ruling. ECF No. 253. Thus, this court no longer 3 || lacks jurisdiction to rule upon Sonner’s Rule 60(b) motion. And, for reasons discussed in 4 || the court’s order of June 24, 2019, the motion is meritorious — i.e., all the claims in 5 || Sonner’s amended petition are timely under Williams v. Filson, 908 F.3d 546 (9" Cir. 6 || 2018). Consequently, Sonner’s motion asking the court to reconsider its denial of Rule 7 || 6O(b) relief should be granted. Furthermore, respondents must now answer previously- 8 || dismissed claims on the merits. 9 IT |S THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this 10 || court’s order denying his prior Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No. 254) is GRANTED. This 11 || court's order of June 23, 2013, is vacated to the extent it dismissed claims in Sonner’s 12 || amended petition (ECF No. 96) as untimely. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 45 days from the date 14 || on which this order is entered within which to file their answer to the following claims in 15 || the amended petition (ECF No. 96): Claims A-F, J-Z, AA-FF, HH, JJ-WW (except for 16 || PP4, TT2, TT10, and TT11), AAA-FFF, and LLL-YYY (except for XXX). Petitioner shall 17 || have 45 days following service of an answer by respondents to file and serve a reply. 18 || Respondents shall thereafter have 30 days following service of a reply to file and serve 19 || aresponse to the reply. 20 IT |S FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ unopposed motion for extension 21 || of time (ECF No. 255) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc as of July 11, 2019. 22 DATED THIS 7 day of October 2019, 23 LO 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE □ 25 26 27 28