KEVIN JAMES LISLE v. E.K. MCDANIEL

Filing 251

ORDER denying Respondents' ECF No. 250 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/22/2016. (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-1006-MMD-CWH
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.

11
12
13

RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

14
15

In this capital habeas corpus action, on August 15, 2016, the respondents filed a

16

motion for extension of time (ECF no. 248), and on August 17, 2016, the Court granted

17

that motion in part and denied it in part, extending to September 30, 2016, the time for

18

respondents "to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss, a response to the

19

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

20

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

21

motion for orders for medical examination (ECF no. 245)." Order entered August 17,

22

2016 (ECF no. 249), at 2, lines 6-9 (emphasis added).

23

On August 18, 2016, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No.

24

250), requesting that the extension of time be applied to their response to the

25

oppositions to their motion to dismiss filed at ECF Nos. 206 and 240.

26

The August 17, 2016, order expressly extended the time for respondents to file

27

"their reply in support of their motion to dismiss," as well as their responses to

28

petitioner's motions. Order entered August 17, 2016 (ECF no. 249), at 2, line 6.

1

Respondents' "reply in support of their motion to dismiss" will, by definition, include

2

their response to the oppositions to their motion to dismiss filed at ECF nos. 206 and

3

240. Therefore, reconsideration of the August 17 order is unnecessary; respondents'

4

time to respond to the oppositions to their motion to dismiss filed at ECF nos. 206 and

5

240 has been extended to September 30.

6
7
8

It is therefore ordered that respondents' Motion to Reconsider (ECF no. 250) is
denied.
DATED THIS 22nd day of August 2016.

9
10

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2