Matthews v. Neven et al

Filing 22

ORDER Granting 21 Motion to Extend Time to Respond to 16 Motion to Dismiss. Response due by 8/31/2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, after petitioner responds to the motion to dismiss, respondents shall have 20 days to reply. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/30/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

JEMAR D. MATTHEWS,

4

Petitioner,

5

vs.

6

DWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,

7

2:14-cv-00472-GMN-PAL

Respondents.
_________________________________/

ORDER

8
9

In this habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on July 13, 2015

10

(ECF No. 16). The petitioner, Jemar D. Matthews, is due to file a response to the motion to dismiss

11

by August 17, 2015. See Order entered May 13, 2015 (ECF No. 15).

12

Matthews has filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 21), requesting an extension of

13

time for his response, to August 31, 2015. That would be a 14-day extension of time, not a 30-day

14

extension, as petitioner’s counsel calculates it. Counsel states that the extension of time is necessary

15

because of his work in other cases and because of previously-scheduled vacation time. Petitioner’s

16

counsel indicates that respondents’ counsel does not object to the extension of time.

17
18
19

The court finds that the 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 requested extension of time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for extension of time (ECF No.

20

21) is GRANTED. Petitioner shall have until and including August 31, 2015, to respond to the

21

motion to dismiss.

22
23
24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, after petitioner responds to the motion to dismiss,
respondents shall have twenty (20) days to reply.
DATED this 30th day of July, 2015.

25
26
27

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court