McNeal v. Williams et al

Filing 71

ORDER granting 70 Motion to Extend Time to respond to 66 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondents have until 1/11/2021 to file an answer or otherwise respond to the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 12/14/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Case 2:16-cv-01618-JAD-EJY Document 71 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

MARCUS SHARIF MCNEAL,

5

Case No. 2:16-cv-01618-JAD-EJY
Petitioner,

v.

6

Order Granting Extension of Time

BRIAN E. WILLIAMS, et al.,

7

[ECF No. 70]
Respondents.

8
9

Respondents move for a 31-day extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the

10

amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case. 1 This is respondents’ second request for

11

extension of the deadline. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondents’

12

motion for enlargement of time [ECF No. 70] is GRANTED. Respondents have until January

13

11, 2021, to file an answer or otherwise respond to the amended petition for writ of habeas

14

corpus. 2

15

_________________________________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
Dated: December 14, 2020

16
17
18
19
20
21
1

22
23
24
25
26
27

ECF No. 70.

2

The new deadline I approve in this order falls 4 ½ years after this case began in July 2016. However,
this case essentially started anew in November 2019 when the Ninth Circuit instructed me to consider
granting McNeal leave to amend his petition. Lengthy habeas litigation is generally incompatible with
the three-year goal set by the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (CJRA), 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., as well
as the purposes served by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) 28 U.S.C. § 2244
et seq.: finality, efficiency, and comity. This case is now long past the CJRA’s three-year goal. Given the
lack of progress to date, additional delay will further impede this case from reaching a merits
determination. Accordingly, any future request for extension of time—even if unopposed—will be
carefully scrutinized for good cause and, moving forward, counsel will be required to prioritize the
briefing in this case over later-filed matters.

28
1