Zimmerman v. State of Nebraska

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (Filing No. 24 ) is granted in part. Petitioner shall file his response brief by March 7, 2014. Respondent's Objection (Filing No. 25 ) is granted in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHRISTOPHER ZIMMERMAN,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 4:12CV3246

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (Filing
No. 24) and Respondent’s Objection to Petitioner’s Motion (Filing No. 25). Petitioner
requests a second 90-day extension of time to respond to Respondent’s Brief. (Filing No.
24; see also Filing Nos. 22 and 23.) Petitioner argues that he needs the extra time to get
“information and statements from people involved to back the claims” he filed. (Id.)
Respondent objects to the extension, arguing that Petitioner’s Petition is time barred and
that providing Petitioner with more time to respond is unnecessary. (Filing No. 25.) The
court agrees with Respondent; a 90-day extension of time under these circumstances is
unnecessary. Nevertheless, the court will provide Petitioner with a reasonable extension
of time. Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (Filing No. 24) is granted in part.
Petitioner shall file his response brief by March 7, 2014; and

2.

Respondent’s Objection (Filing No. 25) is granted in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.

DATED this 24th day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites.
Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the court.
2