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

Filing 216

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 215 respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time is GRANTED. Respondents shall have until and including 2/12/18, to file their answer. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered 8/10/15 (ECF No. 167 ) shall remain in effect. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
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 17 18 In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents were due to file their answer by November 27, 2017. See Order entered September 28, 2017 (ECF No. 214). On November 27, 2017, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 215), 19 requesting a 77-day extension, to February 12, 2018, for their answer. Respondents’ counsel states 20 that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases. The petitioner does 21 not oppose the extension of time. The Court finds that respondents’ motion for extension of time is 22 made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the 23 requested extension of time. 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time 25 (ECF No. 215) is GRANTED. Respondents shall have until and including February 12, 2018, to 26 file their answer. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further 2 proceedings set forth in the order entered August 10, 2015 (ECF No. 167) shall remain in effect. 3 4 Dated Novemberday of November, 2017. this _____ 28, 2017. 5 6 ______________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?