Bradford v. Baker

Filing 75

ORDER Granting Petitioner's 74 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time (First Request) re 73 Motion to Dismiss. Responses due by 11/27/2017. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 11/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

RENE L. VALLADARES
Federal Public Defender
Nevada State Bar No. 11479
MEGAN C. HOFFMAN
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Nevada State Bar No. 09835
JEREMY C. BARON
Assistant Federal Public Defender
District of Columbia Bar No. 1021801
411 E. Bonneville Ave. Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Petitioner Julius Bradford

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

14
15
16
17
18
19

JULIUS BRADFORD,
Petitioner,
vs.
TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,
Respondents.

Case No: 2:13-cv-01784-RFB-GWF
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
DISMISS
(First Request)

20
21

Petitioner Julius Bradford, by and through his attorneys of record, Assistant

22

Federal Public Defenders Megan C. Hoffman and Jeremy C. Baron, hereby moves

23

this Court for an extension of time of fourteen (14) days, from November 13, 2017, to

24

and including November 27, 2017, in which to file the opposition to the respondents’

25

motion to dismiss. This motion is based on the attached points and authorities and

26

any pleadings and papers on file herein.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1
2

1.

Mr. Bradford has filed a second amended petition in this case. ECF No.

3

67. The respondents have filed a partial motion to dismiss the second amended

4

petition. ECF No. 73. The current deadline for the opposition to that motion is

5

November 13, 2017. See ECF No. 66; Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).

6

2.

Undersigned counsel have diligently reviewed the motion to dismiss

7

along with Mr. Bradford’s file in an effort to prepare the opposition by the Court’s

8

deadline. However, counsel respectfully suggest that additional time is necessary to

9

properly prepare Mr. Bradford’s opposition to the motion to dismiss.

10

3.

The partial motion to dismiss covers seven claims in Mr. Bradford’s

11

amended petition.

12

anticipates making a number of detailed arguments regarding each of these claims,

13

potentially including an argument that he is actually innocent within the meaning of

14

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), and arguments under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S.

15

1 (2012).

16

discussions, the anticipated opposition is lengthy and complex. As such, additional

17

time is necessary in order to properly prepare the opposition.

18

4.

In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Mr. Bradford

Because these potential arguments require detailed factual and legal

In addition to opposing the motion to dismiss, Mr. Bradford is

19

considering whether to file a motion for leave to conduct discovery and/or for an

20

evidentiary hearing. See ECF No. 66 (requiring that if Mr. Bradford intends to file

21

such a motion, it accompany the opposition to the motion to dismiss). Mr. Bradford

22

had not yet made a final decision about whether such a motion is necessary and, if it

23

is, the precise scope of such a motion. As such, additional time is necessary to

24

evaluate these issues.

25
26

5.

The undersigned counsel who is taking primary drafting responsibility

for the opposition has had many filing obligations in recent weeks, including, among

2

1

others, a reply brief filed on October 31, 2017, in Gutierrez v. State, Case No. 16-

2

15704 (9th Cir.); an amended petition filed on November 6, 2017, in Matlean v.

3

Williams, Case No. 3:16-cv-00233-HDM-VPC (D. Nev.); an opposition to a motion to

4

dismiss filed on November 6, 2017, in Castillo v. Baker, Case No. 3:13-cv-00704-LRH-

5

VPC (D. Nev.), an opposition in which the client is also asserting his actual innocence

6

of first-degree murder; and a supplemental opening brief filed on November 9, 2017,

7

in LaPena v. Grigas, Case No. 15-16154 (9th Cir.), a 40-year-old case in which the

8

Ninth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability regarding the client’s actual

9

innocence within the meaning of Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 417 (1993), and

10

that required extensive review of multiple multi-week trials, evidentiary hearings,

11

trial court and appellate court pleadings, and other documents (counsel originally

12

filed a proposed overlength brief on October 16, 2017, and filed a shortened

13

conforming brief on November 9, 2017).

14

6.

In addition, the undersigned counsel who is taking primary drafting

15

responsibility for the opposition has many additional obligations in the coming weeks,

16

including, among others, an amended petition due on November 16, 2017, in Elliot v.

17

Neven, Case No. 3:11-cv-00041-MMD-VPC (D. Nev.); an application for a certificate

18

of appealability due on November 17, 2017, in Bynoe v. Baca, Case No. 17-17012 (9th

19

Cir.); an amended petition due on November 20, 2017, in Burch v. Baker, 2:17-cv-

20

00656-MMD-VCF (D. Nev.); and a reply in support of an amended petition due on

21

November 20, 2017, in Gonzalez v. Williams, Case No. 2:15-cv-00618-RFB-CWH (D.

22

Nev.).

23

7.

Therefore, counsel seek an additional fourteen (14) days, up to and

24

including November 27, 2017, in which to file the opposition. This is undersigned

25

counsel’s first request for an extension of time to file Mr. Bradford’s opposition.

26

Undersigned counsel do not anticipate the need to take the entire fourteen days;

3

1

however, in an abundance of caution, counsel propose a deadline that postdates the

2

Thanksgiving holiday.

3

8.

On November 9, 2017, counsel contacted Chief Deputy Attorney General

4

Heidi P. Stern and informed her of this request for an extension of time. As a matter

5

of professional courtesy, Ms. Stern had no objection to the request. Ms. Stern’s lack

6

of objection should not be considered as a waiver of any procedural defenses or statute

7

of limitations challenges, or construed as agreeing with the accuracy of the

8

representations in this motion.

9

9.

This motion is not filed for the purpose of delay, but in the interests of

10

justice, as well as in the interest of Mr. Bradford.

11

respectfully request that this Court grant this motion and order Mr. Bradford to file

12

the opposition to the respondents’ motion to dismiss no later than November 27, 2017.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

4

Counsel for Mr. Bradford

1

Dated this 9th day of November, 2017.

2
3

Respectfully submitted,

4
5

RENE L. VALLADARES
Federal Public Defender

6

/s/Megan C. Hoffman

7

MEGAN C. HOFFMAN
Assistant Federal Public Defender

8

/s/Jeremy C. Baron

9

JEREMY C. BARON
Assistant Federal Public Defender

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED:

14
15
16
17

______________________________
United States District Judge

18

Dated: ________________________ 2017.
13th day of November,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

I hereby certify that on November 9, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing

3

with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, District of Nevada

4

by using the CM/ECF system.

5
6

Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by
the CM/ECF system and include: Heidi P. Stern.

7

I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered

8

CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing by First-Class Mail, postage pre-paid, or

9

have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within three

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

calendar days, to the following non-CM/ECF participants:
Julius Bradford
No. 81604
Ely State Prison
PO Box 1989
Ely, NV 89301

/s/ Jessica Pillsbury

An Employee of the
Federal Public Defender