STERLING ATKINS v. E.K. MCDANIEL (DEATH PENALTY)

Filing 208

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 207 respondents' Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Respondents shall have until 7/21/17, to file a reply in support to 192 their motion to dismiss, and responses to 203 petiti oner's motion for evidentiary hearing and 204 motion for leave to conduct discovery. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in 167 the order entered 8/10/16 shall remain in effect. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/25/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

STERLING ATKINS,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

TIMOTHY FILSON et al.,

13

2:02-cv-01348-JCM-PAL

Respondents.

ORDER

14

/

15
16

The petitioner in this capital habeas corpus action, Sterling Atkins, filed a fourth amended

17

habeas petition on August 26, 2016 (ECF No. 183). Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on

18

December 22, 2016 (ECF No. 192). Atkins filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No.

19

202), as well as a motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 203) and motion for leave to conduct

20

discovery (ECF No. 204) on April 21, 2017. Respondents were then due to file a reply in support of

21

their motion to dismiss, and responses to the motion for evidentiary hearing and discovery motion,

22

no later than May 22, 2017. See Order entered August 10, 2016 (ECF No. 167) (30 days).

23

On May 22, 2017, respondents filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 207),

24

requesting a 74-day extension of time, to August 4, 2017. Respondents’ counsel states that the

25

extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases and time away from her

26

office in May and June. Atkins’ counsel does not oppose the motion for extension of time.

1

The court finds that respondents’ motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not

2

solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is generally good cause for an extension of time.

3

However, the court finds that 74 days is excessive. The court will grant the motion for extension of

4

time, but only to the extent of 60 days, to July 21, 2017. The court will not be inclined to further

5

extend this due date.

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ Motion for Extension of Time

7

(ECF No. 207) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Respondents shall have until

8

July 21, 2017, to file a reply in support to their motion to dismiss, and responses to petitioner’s

9

motion for evidentiary hearing and motion for leave to conduct discovery.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further

11

proceedings set forth in the order entered August 10, 2016 (ECF No. 167) shall remain in effect.

12

May 25, 2017.
Dated this _____ day of May, 2017.

13
14
______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2