KEVIN JAMES LISLE v. E.K. MCDANIEL

Filing 249

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Respondents' ECF No. 248 Motion for Extension of Time. Reply re ECF No. 182 Motion to Dismiss, response re ECF No. 243 Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, response re ECF No. 244 Moti on for Leave to Conduct Discovery, and response re ECF No. 245 Motion for Orders for Medical Examination due 9/30/2016. The Court will not be inclined to further extend these deadlines absent extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/16/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10

KEVIN JAMES LISLE,

Case No. 2:03-cv-01006-MMD-CWH
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

11
12

RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14
15

In this capital habeas corpus action, after a 60-day extension of time, the

16

respondents are, on August 16, 2016, due to file a reply in support of their motion to

17

dismiss, a response to the petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 243), a

18

response to the petitioner's motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 244), and a

19

response to the petitioner's motion for orders for medical examination (ECF No. 245).

20

See Order filed May 31, 2016 (ECF No. 247). On August 15, 2016, one day before the

21

deadline, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 248), in which, as

22

the Court understands it, they request a further extension of time for those filings, to

23

October 14, 2016 ― a 59-day extension of time. Petitioner does not oppose the

24

extension of time.

25

Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of

26

the complexity of this matter, and because of his obligations in other cases. The Court

27

finds that the requested extension of time is excessive, and the Court is troubled by

28

respondents waiting until the day before the due date to make the request.

1

The Court will grant an extension of time, but for a shorter period than is

2

requested. The Court will not be inclined to further extend these deadlines absent

3

extraordinary circumstances.

4

It is therefore ordered that respondents' Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No.

5

248) is granted in part and denied in part. Respondents will have until and including

6

September 30, 2016, to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss, a response

7

to the petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 243), a response to the

8

petitioner's motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 244), and a response to the

9

petitioner's motion for orders for medical examination (ECF No. 245).

10

It is further ordered that, in all other respects, the schedule for further

11

proceedings set forth in the order entered November 16, 2016 (ECF No. 236) will

12

remain in effect.

13

DATED THIS 16th day of August 2016.

14
15

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2