Guy v. Baker

Filing 145

ORDER Granting 143 Motion to Extend Time; Re: 90 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Responses due by 2/23/2022. Petitioner will then have 150 days to file his reply. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the 85 Order will remain in effect. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 1/28/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Case 2:11-cv-01809-APG-NJK Document 145 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 CURTIS GUY,
4

Case No.: 2:11-cv-01809-APG-NJK
Petitioner,

5 v.
6 WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,
7
8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF No. 143)

Respondents.
In this capital habeas corpus action, after an initial period of 119 days, and extensions of

9 60, 62, 45, 32, 45 and 14 days, the respondents were due to file their answer to Petitioner Curtis
10 Guy’s second amended habeas petition by January 27, 2022. See Order entered January 15, 2021
11 (ECF No. 130) (initial 119-day period); Order entered May 17, 2021 (ECF No. 132) (60-day
12 extension); Order entered July 14, 2021 (ECF No. 134) (62-day extension); Order entered
13 September 14, 2021 (ECF No. 136) (45-day extension); Order entered November 1, 2021 (ECF
14 No. 138) (32-day extension); Order entered November 30, 2021 (ECF No. 140) (45-day
15 extension); Order entered January 14, 2022 (ECF No. 142) (14-day extension).
16

On January 27, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 143),

17 requesting a further 7-day extension, to February 3, 2022. Respondents’ counsel states that this
18 extension of time is necessary because during the last week of the time to file the answer, she
19 became ill and could not work on anything of substance, and as of the due date for the answer
20 was still recovering. The Court finds that Respondents’ motion for extension of time is made in
21 good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and there is good cause for an extension of
22 time. I will grant this motion for extension of time.
23

The second amended petition was filed on March 18, 2019 (ECF No. 90). Respondents
filed a motion to dismiss on November 4, 2019 (ECF No. 105). The motion to dismiss was

Case 2:11-cv-01809-APG-NJK Document 145 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 2

1 resolved on January 15, 2021 (ECF No. 130). Respondents have had over a year to file their
2 answer following the resolution of the motion to dismiss. This has been undue delay, in my view,
3 even considering the complexity of this case and the challenges Respondents’ counsel has
4 apparently faced. Nevertheless, in view of the serious reason for this latest request for an
5 extension of time, I will extend the time for the answer to February 23, 2022. That is 20 days
6 more than was requested. I will not further extend this deadline.
7

Further, considering the complexity of this case, and the time the respondents have taken

8 to file their answer, I will, sua sponte, extend to 150 days the time for Guy to file his reply to the
9 answer.
10

I THEREFORE ORDER that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF

11 No. 143) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including February 23, 2022, to file
12 their answer. Petitioner will then have 150 days to file his reply. In all other respects, the
13 schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered November 26, 2018 (ECF No. 85)
14 will remain in effect.
15

Dated: January 28, 2022

16

________________________________
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

2