Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.745 (2026)

Judicial order to file response or answer; when order is required; form of order; summary dismissal of successive petitions; record of proceeding

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 34.745  Judicial order to file response or answer; when order is required; form of order; summary dismissal of successive petitions; record of proceeding.

      1.  The judge or justice shall order the prosecuting agency to:

      (a) File a response or an answer to the petition within 45 days or a longer period fixed by the judge or justice; or

      (b) Take other action that the judge or justice deems appropriate.

      2.  An order entered pursuant to subsection 1 must be in substantially the following form, with appropriate modifications if the order is entered by a judge of the Court of Appeals or a justice of the Supreme Court:

 

Case No...................................................                

Dept. No..................................................                

 

IN THE .................. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE

STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ..................

 

......................................................................

                          Petitioner,

 

                                  v.                                                       ORDER

 

......................................................................

                        Respondent.

 

       Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on ..... (month) ..... (day), ..... (year). The court has reviewed the petition and has determined that a response would assist the court in determining whether petitioner is illegally imprisoned and restrained of petitioner’s liberty. Respondent shall, within 45 days after the date of this order, answer or otherwise respond to the petition in accordance with the provisions of NRS 34.360 to 34.830, inclusive.

 

       Dated ..... (month) ..... (day), ..... (year)

 

                                                                                   .......................................................

                                                                                                   District Judge

 

Ê A copy of the order must be served on the petitioner or the petitioner’s counsel, the respondent, the Attorney General and, if applicable, any other prosecuting agency.

      3.  If the petition is a second or successive petition challenging the validity of a judgment of conviction or sentence and if it plainly appears from the face of the petition or an amended petition and documents and exhibits that are annexed to it, or from records of the court that the petitioner is not entitled to relief based on any of the grounds set forth in subsection 3 of NRS 34.810, the judge or justice shall enter an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified of the entry of the order.

      4.  If the judge or justice relies on the records of the court in entering an order pursuant to this section, those records must be made a part of the record of the proceeding before entry of the order.

      (Added to NRS by 1991, 76; A 1999, 145; 2001, 57; 2013, 1741; 2023, 1628)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: State v. Haberstroh, 69 P.3d 676 (Nev. 2003).
State v. Haberstroh, 69 P.3d 676 (Nev. 2003). · cites it 4× “810(3) expressly provides that "the petitioner has the burden of pleading and proving specific facts that demonstrate" both good cause for failing to present a claim or for presenting a claim again and actual prejudice, and NRS 34.745(4) allows courts to look beyond the face of…”
Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001). “8 See NRS 34.745(4) (providing for summary dismissal of successive petitions); NRS 34.”
Griffin v. State, 137 P.3d 1165 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 3× “Compare NRS 34.745(1), with NRS 34.745(2). 106 Nev.”
Mann v. State, 46 P.3d 1228 (Nev. 2002). “If, as in this case, the petition is the first one that the petitioner has filed challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence, NRS 34.745(1) requires the district court to order an answer from the State or to take other action deemed appropriate.”
Barnhart v. State, 130 P.3d 650 (Nev. 2006). “8 Barnhart has not demonstrated that the district court erred. In sum, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Barnhart’s petition and we affirm the judgment of the district court.”
Miles v. State, 91 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2004). “NRS 34.745(1) (emphasis added). NRS 34.735 reads: “A petition must be in substantially the following form .”
Renteria-novoa (guillermo) Vs. State, 2017 NV 11 (Nev. 2017). · cites it 2× “See NRS 34.745(1), (4). In briefly considering some of the factors identified in NRS 34.”
Kinford v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “726, NRS § 34.745(4), and NRS § 34.810. (ECF No.”
Bermudez (Bernabi) v. State (Nev. 2013). · cites it 2× “Rather, NRS 34.745(1) requires the district court judge to order 2 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted.”
Jones v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2014 NV 53 (Nev. 2014). · cites it 2× “810(2); NRS 34.745(4). Another available sanction is to refer the litigant to the Department of Corrections for the forfeiture of credits previously earned.”
Renteria-novoa (guillermo) Vs. State, 2017 NV 11 (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 34.745(1), (4). In briefly considering some of the factors identified in NRS 34.”
Peck (Frank) v. Whorton (Nev. 2014). “740 (requiring the clerk of the court to present the original petition promptly to a district judge); NRS 34.745(1) (requiring the district judge to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required after reviewing the return, answer, and all supporting documents which are…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.745(1) — 8 cases
Mann v. State, 46 P.3d 1228 (Nev. 2002). “If, as in this case, the petition is the first one that the petitioner has filed challenging the validity of his conviction or sentence, NRS 34.745(1) requires the district court to order an answer from the State or to take other action deemed appropriate.”
Griffin v. State, 137 P.3d 1165 (Nev. 2006). “Compare NRS 34.745(1), with NRS 34.745(2). 106 Nev.”
Miles v. State, 91 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2004). “NRS 34.745(1) (emphasis added). NRS 34.735 reads: “A petition must be in substantially the following form .”
Renteria-novoa (guillermo) Vs. State, 2017 NV 11 (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 34.745(1), (4). In briefly considering some of the factors identified in NRS 34.”
Renteria-novoa (guillermo) Vs. State, 2017 NV 11 (Nev. 2017). “See NRS 34.745(1), (4). In briefly considering some of the factors identified in NRS 34.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.745(2) — 1 case
Griffin v. State, 137 P.3d 1165 (Nev. 2006). “Compare NRS 34.745(1), with NRS 34.745(2). 106 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 34.745(4) — 6 cases
State v. Haberstroh, 69 P.3d 676 (Nev. 2003). “810(3) expressly provides that "the petitioner has the burden of pleading and proving specific facts that demonstrate" both good cause for failing to present a claim or for presenting a claim again and actual prejudice, and NRS 34.745(4) allows courts to look beyond the face of…”
Pellegrini v. State, 34 P.3d 519 (Nev. 2001). “8 See NRS 34.745(4) (providing for summary dismissal of successive petitions); NRS 34.”
Kinford v. Garrett (D. Nev. 2020). “726, NRS § 34.745(4), and NRS § 34.810. (ECF No.”
Jones v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2014 NV 53 (Nev. 2014). “810(2); NRS 34.745(4). Another available sanction is to refer the litigant to the Department of Corrections for the forfeiture of credits previously earned.”
Bermudez (Bernabi) v. State (Nev. 2013). “Rather, NRS 34.745(1) requires the district court judge to order 2 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.