Luis A v. Howell et al
Filing
62
ORDER Granting 61 Motion to Extend Time to File Opposition to 60 Motion to Dismiss. Responses due by 1/24/2022. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/10/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ABG)
Case 2:18-cv-01073-JCM-DJA Document 62 Filed 01/10/22 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 Luis A. Urenda-Bustos
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
11
Luis A. Urenda-Bustos,
Petitioner,
12
13
14
15
v.
Jerry Howell, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No. 2:18-cv-01073-JCM-DJA
Unopposed Motion for an
Extension of Time in which to file
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 60)
(First Request)
16
17
Petitioner Luis A. Urenda-Bustos moves for an extension of time of fourteen
18
(14) days, up to and including January 24, 2022, to file his Opposition to Respondents’
19
Motion to Dismiss. Respondents do not oppose this request.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Case 2:18-cv-01073-JCM-DJA Document 62 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 3
1
2
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1.
On July 16, 2021, Mr. Urenda-Bustos filed his Fourth Amended Petition
3
in this case.1 The filing followed Mr. Urenda-Bustos staying his case and returning
4
to state court to exhaust claims.2 On December 27, 2021, Respondents filed a Motion
5
to Dismiss.3 For the reasons detailed below, Mr. Urenda-Bustos seeks a fourteen (14)
6
day extension, or until January 24, 2022, to file his opposition to Respondents’ motion.
7
2.
Undersigned counsel’s duties and responsibilities in other matters, as
8
detailed below, prevented him from meeting the current deadline. Undersigned
9
counsel has a busy caseload involving both non-capital and capital habeas matters
10
currently pending in Nevada and out-of-state district courts for which he is carrying
11
on various investigations and research and writing assignments.
12
3.
Specifically, counsel had to draft a reply to a motion to dismiss due on
13
January 10, 2022 in the non-capital habeas matter Smith v. Howell et al., 20-cv-
14
01108-JAD (D. Nev.). In addition, counsel had to review various pleadings due on
15
January 10, 2022 in the capital habeas case Biela v. Gittere et al., 20-cv-00026-GMN
16
(D. Nev.). Counsel likewise had to research and draft a complex pleading in the out-
17
of-district federal capital case United States v. Schlesinger, 18-cr-02719-RCC-BGM
18
(D. Ariz.), due on December 29, 2021. Finally, counsel was sick with flu-like
19
symptoms during the first week of January 2022, which prevented him from
20
undertaking many of his duties.
21
22
4.
This requested extension will permit counsel time to thoroughly and
adequately respond to the arguments raised by the Respondents in their motion. This
23
24
25
26
ECF No. 19.
2 See ECF Nos. 44-49.
1
3
ECF No. 60.
2
Case 2:18-cv-01073-JCM-DJA Document 62 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 3
1
is Urenda-Bustos’ first request for an extension and is not made for the purposes of
2
delay, but rather in the interests of justice.
3
5.
Finally, the present request for an extension is unopposed. On January
4
10, 2022, counsel for Petitioner contacted Deputy Attorney Erica Berrett via email
5
concerning this request for an extension of time. Ms. Berrett has no objection to the
6
request.
7
WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully requests that this Court grant the request
8
for an extension of time to file an opposition to Respondents’ motion to dismiss to
9
January 24, 2022.
10
Dated this 10th day of January, 2022.
11
12
Respectfully submitted,
13
14
Rene L. Valladares
Federal Public Defender
15
/s/Martin L. Novillo
16
Martin L. Novillo
Assistant Federal Public Defender
17
18
IT
19
IS SO ORDERED:
20
21
______________________________
United States District Judge
22
23
January 10, 2022
Dated: ________________________
24
25
26
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?