Blockson v. Hutchings et al

Filing 53

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 52 Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including 6/20/2022, to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners filing en titled Official Justice Court Records Not Provided by the Attorney General ECF No. 50 is treated as a motion to expand the record and is DENIED. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/9/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:21-cv-00731-GMN-VCF Document 53 Filed 05/09/22 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

CHRISTOPHER LENARD BLOCKSON,

Case No. 2:21-cv-00731-GMN-VCF

Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
JERRY HOWELL, et al.,
Respondents.

10
11

In this habeas corpus action, brought pro se by Christopher Lenard Blockson,

12

the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on February 4, 2022 (ECF No. 35). Blockson

13

filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on February 18, 2022 (ECF No. 45). After a

14

30-day initial period and a 45-day extension of time, Respondents were to file a reply to

15

Blockson’s opposition to their motion by May 5, 2022. See Order entered July 8, 2021

16

(ECF No. 8) (30 days for reply); Order entered March 22, 2022 (ECF No. 49) (45-day

17

extension).

18

On May 5, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF

19

No. 52), requesting a further 46-day extension of time, to June 20, 2022. Respondents’

20

counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in

21

other cases. The Court finds that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith

22

and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension,

23

and the Court will grant the motion. However, the Court has examined Respondents’

24

motion to dismiss and Blockson’s response and determines that Respondents will have

25

had more than enough time (about four months) to file their reply, despite counsel’s

26

heavy caseload. The Court will not grant any further motion to extend this deadline

27

absent extraordinary circumstances.

28
1

Case 2:21-cv-00731-GMN-VCF Document 53 Filed 05/09/22 Page 2 of 2

1

On March 25, 2022, Blockson filed a document entitled “Official Justice Court

2

Records Not Provided by the Attorney General” (ECF No. 50). In that document,

3

Blockson asserts that Respondents failed to provide the Court with certain material from

4

the state court record, and he includes that material as exhibits. The Court treats

5

Blockson’s March 25 filing as a motion to expand the record under Rule 7 of the Rules

6

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Respondents filed a

7

response to Blockson’s motion on April 7, 2022 (ECF No. 51), showing that they have in

8

fact filed copies of the material in question (as part of their Exhibit 3, at ECF No. 36-3).

9

Therefore, the Court will deny Blockson’s motion, as it is unnecessary to expand the

10
11

record as he suggests.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of

12

Time (ECF No. 52) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including

13

June 20, 2022, to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.

14
15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further
proceedings set forth in the order entered July 8, 2021 (ECF No. 8) will remain in effect.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s filing entitled “Official Justice Court

17

Records Not Provided by the Attorney General” (ECF No. 50) is treated as a motion to

18

expand the record and is DENIED.

19
20

9
May
DATED THIS _____ day of ______________________, 2022.

21
22

GLORIA M. NAVARRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2