Hendrix v. State of Nevada et al
ORDER denying 132 Motion to Extend Time. Answering brief due by 8/4/2017. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jamal Damon Hendrix,
Order Granting Motion to Extend Time
Rohan, C/O, et al.,
[ECF No. 132]
Plaintiff Jamal Hendrix moves for a 45–50-day extension of his July 21, 2017, deadline to
respond to the defendants’ supplemental brief on the issue of whether his claims are subject to
further tolling as suggested by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Hendrix does not explain why
he needs additional time (and, in fact, it appears he erroneously believes his deadline was July
10th, not July 21st), though the local rule for requesting additional time (LR IA 6-1(a)) requires
the motion to “state the reasons for the extension requested” so that the court can evaluate
whether good cause for the extension exists.
I deny Hendrix’s motion for a 45–50 day extension of time because he has not
demonstrated good cause for it. But since Hendrix is apparently confused about the deadline, I
will sua sponte grant a short extension, making his brief due August 4, 2017. If Hendrix believes
that he requires more time than that, he will need to file a new motion to extend this August 4,
2017, deadline, which must “state the reasons for the extension requested and must inform the
court of all previous extensions of the subject deadline the court granted.” LR IA 6-1(a).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hendrix’s motion to extend the time for
his supplemental brief regarding tolling [ECF No. 132] is DENIED; the court will nevertheless
extend the deadline briefly because it appears that Hendrix is confused about the actual
deadline. Hendrix has until August 4, 2017, to file his response brief regarding tolling.
DATED: July 14, 2017.
Jennifer A. Dorsey
United States District Judge
Di i J d
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?