William P. Castillo VS E.K. McDaniel. et al., (DEATH PENALTY)

Filing 263

ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 262 ) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including March 25, 2022, to file their responding brief on remand. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all oth er respects, the schedule for further proceedings on remand set forth in the order entered January 25, 2021 (ECF No. 252 ) will remain in effect. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/24/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 2:04-cv-00868-RCJ-EJY Document 263 Filed 01/24/22 Page 1 of 2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

WILLIAM P. CASTILLO,

6

Petitioner,

7

Case No. 2:04-cv-00868-RCJ-EJY

v.

8
9
10

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 262)

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,
Respondents.

11
12
13

In this capital habeas corpus action, on May 25, 2021, the petitioner, William P.

14

Castillo, represented by appointed counsel, filed his opening brief on remand (ECF No.

15

255). Then, after a 60-day initial period, a 60-day extension, another 60-day extension,

16

and a 62-day extension, Respondents were due on January 24, 2022, to file their

17

responding brief. See Order entered January 25, 2021 (ECF No. 252) (60 days for

18

responding brief); Order entered September 8, 2021 (ECF No. 257) (60-day extension);

19

Order entered October 21, 2021 (ECF No. 259) (60-day extension); Order entered

20

December 28, 2021 (ECF No. 261) (62-day extension).

21

On January 24, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No.

22

262), requesting a further 60-day extension of time, to March 25, 2022, to file their

23

responding brief on remand. Respondents’ counsel states that the extension of time is

24

necessary because of her obligations in other cases, time away from her office, and

25

personal medical reasons. Petitioner does not oppose the motion for extension of time.

26

The Court finds that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely

27

for the purpose of delay, and there is good cause for the extension of time.

28
1

Case 2:04-cv-00868-RCJ-EJY Document 263 Filed 01/24/22 Page 2 of 2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of

2

Time (ECF No. 262) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including

3

March 25, 2022, to file their responding brief on remand.

4

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

5

proceedings on remand set forth in the order entered January 25, 2021 (ECF No. 252)

6

will remain in effect.

7
8

DATED THIS 24th January, 2022.

9
10
11

ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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