Stewart v. Johnson et al

Filing 38

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 37 Motion to Extend Time. Replies re 33 Motion to Dismiss due by 1/6/2023. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/17/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TRW)

Download PDF
Case 2:21-cv-01490-APG-BNW Document 38 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 TOMMY LAQUADE STEWART, Case No.: 2:21-cv-01490-APG-BNW 4 ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Petitioner, 5 v. 6 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., (ECF NO. 37) Respondents. 7 8 9 In this habeas corpus action, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on August 19, 2022. 10 ECF No. 33. The petitioner, Tommy Laquade Stewart, represented by appointed counsel, filed an 11 opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 18, 2022. ECF No. 36. Respondents then had 30 12 days, until November 17, 2022, to file a reply to Stewart’s opposition to their motion to dismiss. 13 See ECF No. 9. 14 On November 16, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 37), 15 requesting a 60-day extension of the time. Respondents’ counsel states that the extension of time 16 is necessary because of her obligations in other cases and because she “will be on vacation the 17 week of November 21, 2022 and possibly the first week of January 2023.” ECF No. 37 at 2. 18 Respondents’ counsel states that Stewart does not oppose the motion for extension of time. Id. 19 I find that Respondents’ motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely 20 for the purpose of delay, and I find that there is good cause for an extension of time. I also find, 21 though, that this request is excessive. The motion to dismiss does not appear to be especially 22 complex. The scheduling order gave Respondents 30 days to file their reply in support of that 23 motion, and that appears to have been reasonable. I cannot countenance Respondents’ request for Case 2:21-cv-01490-APG-BNW Document 38 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2 1 another 60 days for this filing, based generally on counsel’s caseload and counsel’s one or two 2 weeks of vacation over the next two months. I will grant a shorter extension of time—50 days, 3 instead of the 60 days requested—and I will not be inclined to further extend this deadline absent 4 extraordinary circumstances. 5 I THEREFORE ORDER that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time 6 (ECF No. 37) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Respondents will have until 7 and including January 6, 2023, to file a reply to Petitioner’s opposition to their motion to 8 dismiss. 9 Dated: November 17, 2022 10 ________________________________ ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?