Greene v. McDaniel (DEATH PENALTY)

Filing 171

ORDER - Respondents' motion for extension of time (ECF No. 170 ) is granted. Respondents will have until and including September 7, 2021, to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss, their response to Petitioner 9;s motion for leave to conduct discovery, and their response to Petitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered December 6, 2019 (ECF No. 113 ) will remain in effect. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/30/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SC)

Download PDF
Case 2:07-cv-00304-MMD-DJA Document 171 Filed 07/30/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 TRAVERS A. GREENE, 7 8 9 Case No. 2:07-cv-00304-MMD-DJA Petitioner, ORDER v. WILLIAM GITTERE, et al., Respondents. 10 11 In this capital habeas corpus action, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on 12 March 9, 2021. (ECF No. 129.) Petitioner filed a response to the motion to dismiss (ECF 13 No. 162), along with a motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 164) and a motion 14 for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 167), on June 7, 2021. 15 Under the scheduling order in this case (ECF No. 113), the Respondents then had 16 30 days, until July 7, 2021, to file their reply to Petitioner’s response to the motion to 17 dismiss. Under the scheduling order, Respondents’ responses to Petitioner’s two motions 18 are due at the same time as the reply. On June 23, 2021, the Court granted Respondents 19 a 30-day extension of time, to August 6, 2021, to file their reply in support of the motion 20 to dismiss and their responses to Petitioner’s motions (ECF No. 169). 21 On July 29, 2021, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 170), 22 requesting a further 32-day extension of time, to September 7, 2021, to file their reply in 23 support of the motion to dismiss and their responses to Petitioner’s motions. 24 Respondents’ counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of his 25 obligations in other cases. Petitioner does not oppose the motion for extension of time. 26 The Court finds that Respondents’ motion for extension of time is made in good 27 faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension 28 of time requested. Case 2:07-cv-00304-MMD-DJA Document 171 Filed 07/30/21 Page 2 of 2 1 It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ motion for extension of time (ECF No. 2 170) is granted. Respondents will have until and including September 7, 2021, to file their 3 reply in support of their motion to dismiss, their response to Petitioner’s motion for leave 4 to conduct discovery, and their response to Petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing. 5 6 7 It is further ordered that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered December 6, 2019 (ECF No. 113) will remain in effect. DATED THIS 30th Day of July 2021. 8 9 10 11 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?