Thomas v. Filson et al
Filing
38
ORDER Granting 37 Motion to Extend Time re 27 Motion for Stay and Abeyance (First Request). Replies due by 2/6/2018. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/18/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
MARLO THOMAS,
10
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,
13
2:17-cv-00475-RFB-VCF
Respondents.
ORDER
14
______________________________/
15
16
In this capital habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Marlo Thomas, filed a motion for stay on
17
October 26, 2017 (ECF No. 27). Respondents filed an opposition to that motion on January 9, 2018
18
(ECF No. 35). Thomas was due to file a reply to respondents’ opposition to the motion on
19
January 16, 2018. See LR 7-2(d) (7 days for reply).
20
On January 16, 2018, Thomas filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 37), requesting
21
a 21-day extension of time -- to February 6, 2018 -- for his reply in support of his motion for stay.
22
This would be the first extension of this deadline. Petitioner’s counsel states that the extension of
23
time is necessary because of her obligations in another case, and because of a period of mandatory
24
administrative leave. Respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time. The Court finds
25
that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay,
26
and that there is good cause for the extension of time requested.
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF
2
No. 37) is GRANTED. Petitioner shall have until February 6, 2018, to file a reply in support of his
3
motion for stay.
4
5
DATED this 18th day of January, 2018.
6
7
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
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?