RICKEY TODD MAJOR V. E.K. MCDANIEL

Filing 82

ORDER granting [77, 78, & 79] Respondents' Motions to Extend Time to answer or otherwise respond to the remaining claims contained in 14 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and granting 80 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. The answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be treated as timely filed. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/29/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ________________________________ LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is respondents' second, third, and fourth motions for enlargement of time in which to file an answer or otherwise respond to the remaining claims contained in the petition for writ of habeas corpus (docket #77, #78, and #79). Respondents' then filed a motion for leave to file a pleading in excess of thirty pages (docket #80), and an answer to the petition (docket #81). The Court finds that respondents' motions were made in good faith, not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there was good cause for the extensions of time. Moreover, the answer was filed within the time contemplated by the fourth motion for enlargement of time. The Court will grant the motions for enlargement of time, and will treat the answer as timely filed. The Court will also grant the motion to file a pleading in excess of thirty pages. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' motions for enlargement of time (docket #77, #78, and #79) are GRANTED. The answer to the petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be treated as timely filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' motion for leave to file a pleading in excess of thirty pages is GRANTED. DATED this 29th day of January, 2009. vs. E.K. McDANIEL, et al., Respondents. RICKEY TODD MAJOR, Petitioner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 3:99-cv-00237-LRH-RAM ORDER

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?