Bradford v. Baker

Filing 80

ORDER granting 78 Motion to Extend Time; ORDER granting 79 Motion to Extend Time; Re: 73 Motion to Dismiss, 77 Motion for Hearing., Replies for 73 due by 1/26/2018. Responses for 77 due by 1/26/2018. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 12/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

JULIUS BRADFORD,

10

Petitioner,

11

TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,

13

ORDER

vs.

12

2:13-cv-01784-RFB-GWF

Respondents.

14

_____________________________/

15
16

In this habeas corpus action, brought by Nevada prisoner Julius Bradford, the respondents

17

filed a motion to dismiss on September 11, 2017 (ECF No. 73). Bradford filed an opposition to the

18

motion to dismiss on November 27, 2017 (ECF No. 76). And, on November 27, 2017, Bradford also

19

filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 77).

20

The scheduling order governing this case was entered on January 13, 2017 (ECF No. 66).

21

Under that order, respondents’ reply in support of their motion to dismiss was due on December 27,

22

2017, and their response to the motion for evidentiary hearing was due on the same date. See Order

23

entered January 13, 2017 (ECF No. 66).

24

On December 11, 2017, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 78),

25

requesting an extension of time to January 10, 2018, for their response to the motion for evidentiary

26

hearing. Then, on December 27, 2017, respondents filed another motion for extension of time (ECF

1

No. 79), requesting an extension of time to January 26, 2018, to file their reply in support of their

2

motion to dismiss.

3

Respondents’ counsel states that she needs the extensions because of her heavy caseload,

4

because of the retirement of an attorney in her unit, and because of the holidays. This would be the

5

first extension of these deadlines. Bradford does not oppose the motions for extension of time. The

6

Court finds that respondents’ motions for extension of time are made in good faith and not solely for

7

the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extensions of time. The Court will,

8

therefore, grant the extensions of time for both respondents’ reply in support of their motion to

9

dismiss and their response to the motion for evidentiary hearing.

10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motions for extensions of time

11

(ECF Nos. 78 and 79) are GRANTED. Respondents will have until January 26, 2018, to file their

12

reply in support of their motion to dismiss, and their response to petitioner’s motion for evidentiary

13

hearing.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further

15

proceedings set forth in the order entered January 13, 2017 (ECF No. 66) shall remain in effect.

16
17

DATED this 28th day of December, 2017.

18
19
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2