Smith v. Baker et al

Filing 78

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 77 Petitioner's motion for late filing and 76 motion for extension of time are GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including 1/27/2020, to file his response to the motion to dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the 68 order entered 4/24/2019 will remain in effect. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 1/7/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MONTRAIL D. SMITH,

Case No. 2:15-cv-00487-KJD-VCF

Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME AND MOTION
FOR LATE FILING (ECF NOS. 76, 77)

v.
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, SR., et al.,
Respondents.

11
12
13

In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Montrail D. Smith, represented by

14

appointed counsel, was due to respond to Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No.

15

72, filed September 18, 2019) by November 18, 2019. See Order entered April 24, 2019

16

(ECF No. 68) (60 days for response to motion to dismiss).

17

On November 20, 2019, Smith filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 76),

18

requesting a 70-day extension of time, to January 27, 2020, to file his response to the

19

motion to dismiss. Smith also filed a motion for late filing (ECF No. 77), requesting leave

20

of court to file the motion for extension of time after the expiration of the prior deadline.

21

See LR 26-4.

22

Smith’s counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because she has

23

been not yet been able to gather the information necessary to respond to the motion

24

to dismiss, and she states that she drafted the motion for extension of time on

25

November 18, 2019, but, inadvertently, it was not filed on that date. Respondents do not

26

oppose the motion for extension of time.

27
28

The Court finds that Smith’s counsel has shown excusable neglect with respect
to the late filing of the motion for extension of time, and the Court finds that Smith’s
1

1

motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of

2

delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time requested.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for late filing (ECF

3
4

No. 77) and motion for extension of time (ECF No. 76) are GRANTED. Petitioner will

5

have until and including January 27, 2020, to file his response to the motion to dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further

6
7

proceedings set forth in the order entered April 24, 2019 (ECF No. 68) will remain in

8

effect.

9
10

7
January
DATED THIS ___ day of ______________________, 2020

11
12
KENT J. DAWSON,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2