McClain v. Williams et al

Filing 67

ORDER granting 65 Motion to Extend Time Re: 58 Motion to Dismiss, Responses due by 7/23/2021. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 7/23/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HAM)

Download PDF
Case 2:17-cv-00753-RFB-NJK Document 67 Filed 07/23/21 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rene L. Valladares Federal Public Defender Nevada State Bar No. 11479 *Martin L. Novillo Assistant Federal Public Defender Virginia State Bar No. 76997 411 E. Bonneville Ave., Ste. 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6577 Martin_Novillo@fd.org *Attorney for Petitioner Clifford McClain 9 10 U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT D ISTRICT OF N EVADA 11 12 Clifford McClain, Petitioner, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 v. Brian Williams, Warden, et al., Respondents. Case No. 2:17-cv-00753-RFB-NJK Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time in which to file Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Fourth request) Case 2:17-cv-00753-RFB-NJK Document 67 Filed 07/23/21 Page 2 of 3 1 Petitioner Clifford McClain (“Mr. McClain”) moves for an extension of time of 2 two (2) days, up to and including Friday July 23, 2021, to file an opposition to 3 Respondents’ motion to dismiss. Respondents do not oppose this request. 4 1. On July 9, 2019, this Court appointed the Federal Public Defender, 5 District of Nevada to Mr. McClain’s case. ECF No. 39. 1 Undersigned counsel filed Mr. 6 McClain’s Third Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on June 12, 2020. 7 ECF No. 48. On February 3, 2021, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 8 58. Counsel has since requested three extensions. ECF Nos. 59, 61, 63. For those 9 reasons detailed below, counsel seeks a final two (2) day extension. 10 2. A final and modest extension is merited on account of unexpected 11 pleadings undersigned counsel has had to file in other cases over the course of the 12 past two weeks. Specifically, counsel has had to file various pleadings in anticipation 13 of a habeas petition scheduled to be filed the week of July 19, 2021 in California state 14 court in the capital habeas matter of Maury v. Martel, Case No. F461346. Further, 15 counsel has had to prepare and file numerous pre-trial motions in the out-of-district 16 federal capital trial case United States v. Schlesinger, 18-cr-02719-RCC-BGM (D. 17 Ariz.). Specifically, counsel has had to file motions for bill of particulars, challenging 18 the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA), and requesting grand jury transcripts. 19 20 21 3. Counsel has almost completed the opposition to Respondents’ motion to dismiss and does not anticipate additional extensions will be needed. 4. Finally, the present request for an extension is unopposed. On July 21, 22 2021, counsel for Petitioner contacted Deputy Attorney Charles A. Finlayson via 23 email concerning this request for an extension of time. Mr. Finlayson has no objection 24 to the request. 25 26 27 The appointment followed this Court entering an Order granting in part the Respondents’ motion to dismiss Mr. McClain’s second amended, proper person petition for habeas relief. ECF No. 39. 1 2 Case 2:17-cv-00753-RFB-NJK Document 67 Filed 07/23/21 Page 3 of 3 1 5. This requested extension will permit counsel time to properly address 2 the Respondents’ motion. The request is not made for the purposes of delay, but 3 rather in the interests of justice. 4 WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully requests that this Court grant the request 5 for an extension of time to file Mr. McClain’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss to 6 Friday July 23, 2021. 7 Dated July 21, 2021 8 Respectfully submitted, 9 Rene L. Valladares Federal Public Defender 10 11 /s/Martin L. Novillo Martin L. Novillo Assistant Federal Public Defender 12 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED: 16 ______________________________ United States District Judge 17 Dated: ________________________ 18 19 20 DATED this 23rd day of July, 2021. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3

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?