Hiller v. Neven et al

Filing 70

ORDER granting 69 Motion for Extension of Time. Response re 66 Motion to Dismiss is due by 8/22/2024. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 7/8/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 JANET HILLER, 5 Petitioner, 6 v. 7 8 Case No. 2:19-cv-00260-RFB-EJY ORDER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Respondents. 9 10 11 In this habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on May 7, 12 2024 (ECF No. 66). The petitioner, Janet Hiller, represented by appointed counsel, was 13 due to respond to the motion to dismiss by July 8, 2024. See Scheduling Order entered 14 December 22, 2023 (ECF No. 50). 15 On July 8, 2024, Hiller filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 69) 16 requesting a 45-day extension, to August 22, 2024, to respond to the motion to dismiss. 17 Hiller’s counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because she is relatively 18 new to this case and because of her obligations in other cases. Hiller’s counsel 19 represents that Respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time. 20 The Court finds that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith and 21 not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the requested 22 extension of time. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time 1 2 (ECF No. 69) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including August 22, 2024, to 3 respond to the motion to dismiss. In all other respects, the schedule for further 4 proceedings set forth in the order entered December 22, 2023 (ECF No. 50) remains in 5 effect. 6 7 DATED: July 8, 2024. 8 9 RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?