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)
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?