Denson v. Neven et al

Filing 21

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 20 Motion to Extend Time. Respondents shall have until and including 11/4/16, to answer or otherwise respond to 4 the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 9/20/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

RICHARD DENSON,

9

Petitioner,
2:15-cv-01473-APG-PAL

10

vs.

11

DWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,

ORDER
12
13

Respondents.
_____________________________/

14
15

In this habeas corpus action, brought by Nevada prisoner Richard Denson, the respondents

16

were originally granted 90 days, to April 20, 2016, to file an answer or other response to Denson’s

17

habeas petition. See Order entered January 20, 2016 (ECF No. 12). On April 22, 2016, the court

18

extended that deadline by 61 days, to June 20, 2016; on June 10, 2016, the court extended that

19

deadline by another 60 days, to August 19, 2016; and on August 22, 2016, the court extended that

20

deadline by another 31 days, to September 19, 2016. See Order entered April 22, 2016 (ECF No.

21

15); Order entered June 10, 2016 (ECF No. 17); Order entered August 22, 2016 (ECF No. 19).

22

On September 19, 2016, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 16),

23

requesting yet a fourth extension of time, this one 60 days, to November 18, 2016. Respondents’

24

counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases.

25
26

When the court granted the third extension of time, the court stated in the order, with
emphasis, that the court would not be inclined to further extend this deadline. See Order entered

1

August 22, 2016 (ECF No. 19), p. 2, lines 3-4. Respondents’ counsel makes no mention of that

2

warning in her fourth motion for extension of time. Furthermore, the court notes that this fourth

3

motion for extension of time actually requests an extension of time twice as long as the third

4

extension.

5

The court will grant respondents a fourth extension of time, in the interests of justice, but not

6

for the full 60 days requested. And, the court will not further extend this deadline absent a showing

7

of extraordinary circumstances.

8

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ Motion for Extension of Time (ECF

9

No. 20) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Respondents shall have until and

10

including November 4, 2016, to answer or otherwise respond to the petition for writ of habeas

11

corpus in this case (ECF No. 4).

12

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

13

proceedings set forth in the order entered January 20, 2016 (ECF No. 12) shall remain in effect.

14

Dated: September 20, 2016.

15
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2