Sanders v. Williams et al
ORDER that 38 Motion to Extend Time is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that the court will hold a status conference regarding this case on March 22, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for all parties shall appear for that conference. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/20/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BRIAN WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,
In this habeas corpus action, after two extensions of time, the first for 90 days and the
second for 45 days, the petitioner, Debaron Sanders, was due to file an amended habeas petition by
February 24, 2017. See Order entered July 14, 2016 (ECF No. 31); Order entered October 14, 2016
(ECF No. 36); Order entered February 10, 2017 (ECF No. 37).
Sanders is represented by attorney William Gamage, who was appointed to represent
Sanders on July 14, 2016 (ECF No. 31), and who made an initial appearance on Sanders’ behalf on
July 25, 2016 (ECF Nos. 32, 33). When, on February 10, 2017, the court, acting sua sponte, and “in
the interests of justice,” granted the second extension of time, a month after the previously-set
deadline had passed, and extended the deadline to February 24, the court warned:
If Gamage does not meet that deadline, the court intends to enter an order requiring
Gamage to show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions and/or removed
from his representation of the petitioner in this case.
Order entered February 10, 2017 (ECF No. 37), p. 1 (emphasis in original).
Gamage did not file an amended petition on Sanders’ behalf by February 24. Instead, on
February 24, Gamage filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 38), requesting that the deadline
for the amended petition be extended by another seven days, to March 3, 2017. Gamage explained:
Counsel experienced some sort of technical issue with creating PDF versions of the
Amended Petition and accompanying documents. In an abundance of caution counsel
requests 7 days time to resolve the issue with computer software personnel or the
Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 38), p. 1. On February 27, 2017, respondents filed a notice
(ECF No. 39) stating that they do not oppose the motion for extension of time.
Gamage did not file the amended petition by March 3, the deadline that he proposed in his
motion for extension of time; nor did he file the amended petition in the two and a half weeks that
have passed since that date. Gamage has taken no further action in this case since he filed the
motion for extension of time on February 24.
The court cannot find, on the record in this case, that Gamage’s motion for extension of time
was made in good faith, or that there is good cause for the extension of time he requested.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time
(ECF No. 38) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will hold a status conference regarding this
case on March 22, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for all parties shall appear for that conference.
March 20, 2017.
Dated this _____ day of March, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?