Williams v. Wong
Filing
103
ORDER Granting Respondent's Unopposed Motion 102 for First Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief; ORDER Further Modifying Scheduling Orders, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/13/19. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BOB RUSSELL WILLIAMS,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
Case No. 1:09-cv-01068-DAD
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FIRST
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
OPPOSITION BRIEF
(Doc. No. 102)
v.
RON DAVIS, Warden of California State
Prison at San Quentin,
Respondent.
16
ORDER FURTHER MODIFYING
SCHEDULING ORDERS
(Doc. Nos. 69 & 96)
17
18
19
20
Before the court is a motion by respondent warden Ron Davis, through counsel Deputy
21 Attorney General Craig Meyers, to extend the current June 18, 2019 deadline for filing his
22 opposition brief on the application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to all claims in the petition to August
23 19, 2019.
This extension of time, respondent’s first, is necessary due to the voluminous
24 pleadings and record, the number and complexity of issues raised, and counsel’s responsibilities
25 in other matters.
26
Mr. Meyers represents that counsel for petitioner, Assistant Federal Defender Harry
27 Simon, does not oppose the requested extension.
28 /////
1
1
The court finds good cause to grant the instant motion and thereupon further modify the
2 court’s schedule in this case.
3
Accordingly,
4
1.
Respondent’s unopposed motion for first extension of time to file and serve his
5
opposition brief on the application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to all claims in the
6
petition is granted to and including August 19, 2019.
7
2.
Petitioner’s reply brief on the application of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to all claims in
the petition shall be filed and served by not later than June 19, 2020.
8
9
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 13, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?