Thomas v. Filson et al

Filing 33

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 30 respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time is GRANTED in part. Respondents' response to 27 petitioner's motion for stay is due by 1/9/2018. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 12/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 9 MARLO THOMAS, 10 Petitioner, 2:17-cv-00475-RFB-VCF 11 vs. 12 ORDER 13 TIMOTHY FILSON, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 ______________________________/ 16 17 In this capital habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Marlo Thomas, filed a motion for stay on 18 October 26, 2017 (ECF No. 27). After an extension of time (ECF No. 29), respondents were to respond 19 to that motion by December 14, 2017. 20 On December 14, 2017, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 31), requesting 21 reconsideration of the Court’s order (ECF No. 9) accepting Thomas’ waiver of a conflict disclosed by 22 his counsel, the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada (FPD). 23 Also on December 14, 2017, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 30), 24 requesting that their response to the motion for stay be suspending pending the resolution of the motion 25 for reconsideration. Based on a review of the record, the Court finds it appropriate to extend the 26 Respondents’ time to respond to the motion to stay but not to extend the time until the motion for 1 reconsideration has been decided. 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time 3 (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED in part. Respondents’ response to petitioner’s motion for stay (ECF No. 4 27) is due by January 9, 2018. 5 6 Dated this 19th day of December, 2017. 7 8 RICHARD FRANKLIN BOULWARE II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

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?