1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4

5 RICHARD GRANADOS, Case No. 3:20-cv-00427-ART-CSD

6 Petitioner, Order Inviting Submission of v. Additional State-Court Record Items 7 TIM GARRETT, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 This matter is before the Court on consideration of the merits of Richard 11 Granados’s petition for writ of federal habeas corpus under

. 12 The parties have submitted state-court record items in support of their 13 respective arguments concerning the claims raised by Granados’s petition. The 14 parties are now invited to file with the Court any additional items developed in 15 the state-court record that are necessary for adequate review of the claims raised 16 in the petition, including consideration of the reasonableness of any relevant 17 state-court assessments of the claims in the petition. See

(f); 18 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rules 7(a) and (b); Shinn v. Ramirez, 19

, 1732 (2022) (stating review of a federal habeas corpus claim is 20 “based solely on the state-court record.”) (citing Cullen v. Pinholster,

, 21 180 (2011)); see also McDaniels v. Kirkland,

(9th Cir. 2015) 22 (en banc) (holding federal habeas courts “may consider the entire state-court 23 record, including evidence that was presented only to the trial court.”). 24 The goal of this Order is to ensure the Court has a complete state-court 25 record necessary for adequate review of the claims in Granados’s petition. The 26 Court notes that portions of the state-court record filed by the parties do not 27 include, for example (1) surveillance video admitted at trial; (2) photographs 28 admitted at trial, including, but not limited to, those depicting the scene of the 1 || incident, firearm cartridge cases, bullet holes, the vehicle crash scene; or (3) the 2 || codefendant’s plea agreement. The Court is neither requesting additional state- 3 || court record items, nor suggesting the above items are necessary, may or will be 4 || considered, or are recommended, for appropriate review of the claims. The Court 5 || leaves it to the parties to determine whether additional items contained in the 6 || state-court record should be filed to advance their arguments concerning the 7 || claims in the petition. The parties are directed not to file immaterial items. The 8 || Court reserves the right to strike filings that fall outside the scope of this Order. 9 Upon submission, if any, of additional state-court record items by either 10 || party, the party against whom the additional items are offered will have 15 days 11 || after the filing of the items to admit or deny the correctness of the items. Rules 12 || Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 7(c). 13 Upon receipt and review of any additional state-court items submitted in 14 || response to this Order, if any, the Court will determine whether it will order 15 || supplemental briefing or argument. The Court will notify the parties if it deems 16 || further briefing or argument is appropriate. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that within 60 days of the entry of this 18 || Order, the parties may file with the Court additional items, not already filed with 19 || the Court, that were developed in the state-court record and that are necessary 20 || for adequate review of the claims in the petition, including the reasonableness of 21 || any relevant state-court assessments of the claims in the petition. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon filing of the items by either party, 23 || the party against whom the additional items are offered will have 15 days after 24 || the filing of the items to admit or deny the correctness of the items. 25 DATED THIS day of August 2023. 26 A> +s jlosed Ter 27 — Fe ANNE R. TRAUM 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE