Harsh v. Gentry et al

Filing 65

ORDER granting ECF No. 64 Motion to Extend Time re ECF No. 62 Answer to ECF No. 22 Second Amended Petition. Petitioner's reply due by 2/25/2020. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/31/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

THOMAS HARSH,

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

7

ORDER

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

This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s unopposed first motion for

12

extension of time (ECF No. 64). Petitioner seeks a 60-day extension of time to file and

13

serve a reply in support of the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF

14

No. 22).

15

Habeas actions are civil actions under federal practice and are subject to the

16

reporting requirements of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“CJRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 471

17

et seq. 1 The CJRA sets a three-year goal for resolution of each civil case on the merits,

18

id. § 476(a)(3), and encourages “setting, at the earliest practicable time, deadlines for filing

19

motions and a time framework for their disposition,” id. § 473(a). Although the procedural

20

and legal complexity of some habeas actions may impede the three-year objective, the

21

Court attempts to posture each case for a merits decision within three years of filing.

22

Petitioner commenced this action in July 2017. (ECF No. 1.) To date, both parties

23

have received numerous extensions of time to amend the pleadings and complete briefing.

24
25
26
27
28

1The

CJRA provides that each United States District Court must develop a civil
justice expense and delay reduction plan to facilitate the deliberate adjudication of civil
cases on the merits, monitor and improve litigation management, and reduce cost and
delay. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (noting that the rules should be implemented to “secure
the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of each case). The CJRA mandates the
early and on-going judicial management of case progress. 28 U.S.C. § 473(a).
Additionally, each judge is required to report “the number and names of cases that have
not been terminated within three years after filing” on a semi-annual basis. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 476(a)(3).

1

(ECF Nos. 19, 21, 26, 28, 30, 38, 40, 42, 49, 52, 56, 59.) Petitioner’s current motion asserts

2

that an additional 60 days is necessary to prepare a reply because this case is relatively

3

complex. Counsel recently joined the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada,

4

and she has deadlines in several other cases in the next two months.

5

Given the age of this case, the Court previously directed “counsel for both parties

6

to prioritize the briefing in this case over later-filed matters.” 2 (ECF No. 56 (“Further

7

extensions of time are not likely to be granted absent compelling circumstances

8

and a strong showing of good cause why the briefing could not be completed within

9

the extended time allowed despite the exercise of due diligence.”) (emphasis in

10

original).) This instruction and warning remain in effect.

11

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s unopposed first motion for extension of time

12

(ECF No. 64) is granted. Petitioner has until February 25, 2020, to reply to Respondents’

13

Answer to the Second Amended Petition.

14

DATED THIS 31st day of December 2019.

15
16

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2The

Court notes that Petitioner’s counsel appeared in this case on September 27,
2019 (ECF No. 53), and the Order directing prioritization of this case was entered days
later on October 3, 2019 (ECF No. 56).

2