Harsh v. Gentry et al

Filing 59

ORDER granting ECF No. 58 Motion to Extend Time re ECF No. 22 Amended Petition. Respondents' answer due by 11/27/2019. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/25/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

THOMAS HARSH,

7

Case No. 2:17-cv-02069-MMD-NJK
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
8
JO GENTRY, et al.,
9
Respondents.
10
11

This habeas comes before the Court on Respondents’ fourth unopposed Motion

12

for Extension of Time (ECF No. 58). Although the motion falls short of providing

13

compelling circumstances or a strong showing of good cause, 1 the Court will reluctantly

14

allow the additional two days. It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ motion is granted.

15

Respondents have until November 27, 2019, to file an answer to the surviving claims of

16

the Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 22).

17

DATED THIS 25th day of November 2019.

18
19

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1In

the order granting Respondents’ third request for an extension of time, counsel
was advised:
Given the age of this case, the Court directs counsel for both parties to
prioritize the briefing in this case over later-filed matters. Further extensions
of time are not likely to be granted absent compelling circumstances and a
strong showing of good cause why the briefing could not be completed
within the extended time allowed despite the exercise of due diligence.
(ECF No. 56.)