Thomas v. Filson et al
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 23 respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time is GRANTED. Respondents' response to petitioner's amended petition will be suspended pending the resolution of the motion for stay. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 28 respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including 12/14/2017, to respond to 27 petitioner's motion for stay. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 11/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,
In this capital habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Marlo Thomas, filed an amended habeas
petition on August 1, 2017 (ECF No. 11). The respondents were then due to respond to the amended
petition by October 2, 2017. See Order entered July 14, 2017 (ECF No. 9) (60 days for response). On
September 29, 2017, respondents filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 23), requesting a
45-day extension of time, to November 16, 2017.
Then, on October 26, 2017, Thomas filed a motion for stay (ECF No. 27), requesting a stay of
this action while he returns to state court to exhaust certain of his claims. Respondents were due to
respond to that motion by November 9, 2017. See LR 7-2(b). On November 9, respondents
filed another motion for extension of time (ECF No. 28), this one requesting a 35-day extension of time,
to December 14, 2017, to respond to the motion for stay. This would be the first extension of this
deadline. Respondents’ counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of the complexity
of this case and his obligations in other cases. Petitioner does not oppose the motion for extension of
time. The Court finds that respondents’ 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 extension of time requested. The
Court will grant this motion for extension of time.
In view of the filing of the motion for stay, in the interests of judicial economy, the Court will
also grant respondents’ motion for an extension of time to respond to Thomas’ amended petition, and
will suspend that response pending the resolution of the motion for stay.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time
(ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. Respondents’ response to petitioner’s amended petition will be suspended
pending the resolution of the motion for stay. The Court will set a new due date for respondents’
response to the amended petition, if necessary, after the motion for stay is resolved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No.
28) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including December 14, 2017, to respond to
petitioner’s motion for stay (ECF No. 27).
Dated this 14th day of November, 2017.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
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?