1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 Jesse Bailey IV, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00054-ART-CLB Petitioner 5 Scheduling Order v. 6 State of Nevada, et al., 7 Respondents. 8

9 On February 11, 2025, the Court granted Jesse Bailey IV’s request to 10 appoint counsel and appointed the Federal Public Defender to represent 11 Petitioner. (ECF No. 4.) On March 13, 2025, Alicia R. Intriago of the Federal 12 Public Defender’s Office appeared on behalf of Petitioner. (ECF No. 7) 13 It is therefore ordered that counsel for Petitioner meet with Petitioner as 14 soon as reasonably possible to: (a) review the procedures applicable in cases 15 under

; (b) discuss and explore with Petitioner, as fully as 16 possible, the potential grounds for habeas corpus relief in Petitioner’s case; and 17 (c) advise Petitioner that all possible grounds for habeas corpus relief must be 18 raised at this time and that the failure to do so will likely result in the omitted 19 grounds being barred from future review under the rules regarding abuse of writ. 20 It is further ordered that counsel for Petitioner file an amended petition for 21 writ of habeas corpus within 90 days, which includes all known grounds for relief 22 (both exhausted and unexhausted). 23 1 It is further ordered that Respondents file a response to the petition within 2 90 days of service of the petition. Petitioner will then have 45 days from service 3 of the answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to file a reply or opposition. 4 Any other motions will be subject to the normal briefing schedule under the local 5 rules.

6 Any response to the petition must comport with Habeas Rule 5. 7 Additionally: 8 1. Any procedural defenses raised by Respondents in this case must be 9 raised together in a single, consolidated motion to dismiss. In other words, 10 the court does not wish to address any procedural defenses raised herein 11 either in seriatum fashion in multiple successive motions to dismiss or 12 embedded in the answer. Procedural defenses omitted from the motion to dismiss will be subject to potential waiver. 13

14 2. Respondents must not file a response in this case that consolidates their 15 procedural defenses, if any, with their response on the merits, except 16 under

(b)(2) as to any unexhausted claims clearly lacking 17 merit. If Respondents do seek dismissal of unexhausted claims under § 18 2254(b)(2): (a) they must do so within the single motion to dismiss, not in 19 the answer, and (b) they must specifically direct their argument to the standard for dismissal under § 2254(b)(2) set forth in Cassett v. Stewart, 20

, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2005). In short, no procedural defenses, 21 including exhaustion, should be included with the merits in an answer. 22 All procedural defenses, including exhaustion, must instead be raised by 23 motion to dismiss. ! 3. In any answer filed on the merits, Respondents must specifically cite to 2 and address the applicable state-court written decision and state-court 3 record materials, if any, regarding each claim within the response as to 4 that claim; and Respondents must file a set of state court exhibits relevant 5 to the response filed to the petition. Those exhibits must be filed

6 chronologically and be accompanied by a separate index of exhibits identifying the exhibits by number. Each exhibit must be a separate ’ attachment, and the CM/ECF attachments that are filed must be 8 identified by the number of the exhibit in the attachment. The purpose of 9 this provision is to allow the Court and any reviewing court thereafter to 10 quickly determine from the face of the electronic docket sheet which 11 numbered exhibit is filed in which attachment. Respondents must send a hard copy of all pleadings and indices of exhibits ONLY filed for this case

to the Clerk of Court, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89501, directed to the attention of “Staff Attorney” on the outside of the mailing address label. 14 15 DATED: 17 March 2025. jlosead Jer " pres Waseda 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23