Sonner v.Gittere (DEATH PENALTY)

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * MICHAEL SONNER, Case No. 2:00-cv-01101-KJD-DJA 10 Petitioner, v. ORDER WILLIAM GITTERE,1 et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Before the court is petitioner Sonner’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order denying his prior Rule 60(b) motion. ECF No. 254. For reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.

18 Sonner is a Nevada prisoner sentenced to death. On August 30, 2017, this court 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 Sonner’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) (ECF No. 245) for lack of jurisdiction because the case was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 250. With that same order, however, the court issued an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 indicating it would grant the motion if the Ninth Circuit elected to remand for that purpose. Id. William Gittere, the current warden of Ely State Prison, replaces his predecessor, Timothy Filson, as the 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 || in accordance with this court’s indicative ruling. ECF No. 253. Thus, this court no longer || lacks jurisdiction to rule upon Sonner’s Rule 60(b) motion. And, for reasons discussed in || the court’s order of June 24, 2019, the motion is meritorious — i.e., all the claims in || Sonner’s amended petition are timely under Williams v. Filson, 908 F.3d 546 (9" Cir. || 2018). Consequently, Sonner’s motion asking the court to reconsider its denial of Rule || 6O(b) relief should be granted. Furthermore, respondents must now answer previously- || dismissed claims on the merits.

9 IT |S THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this || court’s order denying his prior Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No. 254) is GRANTED. This || court's order of June 23, 2013, is vacated to the extent it dismissed claims in Sonner’s || amended petition (ECF No. 96) as untimely.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 45 days from the date || on which this order is entered within which to file their answer to the following claims in || the amended petition (ECF No. 96): Claims A-F, J-Z, AA-FF, HH, JJ-WW (except for || PP4, TT2, TT10, and TT11), AAA-FFF, and LLL-YYY (except for XXX). Petitioner shall || 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 || aresponse to the reply.

20 IT |S FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ unopposed motion for extension || 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 □