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)

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