Moore v. Masto et al

Filing 53

ORDER that Petitioner's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 52 ) is GRANTED; Petitioner's second amended babeas petition due by 6/7/2019; in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered February 5, 2019 (ECF No. 51 ) will remain in effect. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/18/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 RANDOLPH L. MOORE, 7 Petitioner, 8 Case No. 2:13-cv-0655-JCM-CWH v. ORDER 9 10 WILLIAM GITTERE, et al., Respondents. 11 12 13 In this capital habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Randolph L. Moore, was due to file a 14 second amended habeas petition by April 8, 2018. See Order entered February 5, 2019 (ECF 15 No. 51). 16 On April 8, 2019, Moore filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 52), requesting a 17 60-day extension of time, to June 7, 2019, to file his second amended petition. Moore’s counsel 18 states that the extension of time is necessary because of his obligations in other cases. The 19 respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time. 20 21 The Court finds that Moore’s motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time requested. 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 23 52) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including June 7, 2019, to file his second 24 amended habeas petition. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered February 5, 2019 (ECF No. 51) will remain in effect. 3 4 DATED THIS 18th day of April, 2019. 5 6 JAMES C. MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 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?