Hobson v. Howell et al

Filing 63

ORDER Granting 62 Motion to Extend Time. Attorney General of the State of Nevada Answer due 3/17/2025; Ronald Oliver Answer due 3/17/2025. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/4/2025. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JG)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 TONY HOBSON, 5 Petitioner, 6 v. 7 RONALD OLIVER, et al., 8 Respondents. Case No. 2:20-cv-00503-KJD-NJK ORDER 9 10 11 In this habeas corpus action, after a 90-day initial period and a 56-day 12 extension, the respondents were due to file a response to Petitioner Tony Hobson’s 13 fourth amended habeas petition by March 3, 2025. See ECF Nos. 57, 61. On 14 March 3, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 62), requesting a 15 further 14-day extension, to March 17, 2025. Respondents’ counsel states that the 16 extension of time is necessary because of their obligations in other cases. 17 Respondents’ counsel represents that Hobson, who is represented by appointed 18 counsel, does not oppose the motion for extension of time. The Court finds that the 19 motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of 20 delay, and there is good cause for the extension of time. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement 2 of Time (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including 3 March 17, 2025, to file an answer or other response to the Petitioner’s fourth amended 4 petition for writ of habeas corpus. In all other respects, the schedule for further 5 proceedings set forth in the order entered September 3, 2024 (ECF No. 55) will remain 6 in effect. 7 8 DATED THIS 4th day of March, 2025. 9 10 KENT J. DAWSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?