MARK ROGERS V. E.K. MCDANIEL, ET AL.

Filing 169

ORDERED that petitioner shall have until and including March 24, 2016, to file and serve a brief setting forth his position with respect to each of the issues to be addressed on the Remand of this case from the court of appeals (# 162 ), as describe d in the # 167 Order entered August 25, 2015. FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings in this case shall be governed by the # 167 Order entered August 25, 2015. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/3/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

MARK ROGERS,

8
9
10
11
12

Petitioner,
vs.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
/

3:02-cv-00342-GMN-VPC
ORDER

13
14

This is a capital habeas corpus action, initiated by Mark Rogers, a Nevada prisoner.

15

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to this court for further consideration of

16

claims made by Rogers with respect to the guilt phase of his trial, in light of potentially relevant

17

cases decided while the case was on appeal. See Opinion of the Court of Appeals, July 16, 2015

18

(ECF No. 162), pp. 17-19. The court of appeals affirmed this court’s grant of habeas corpus relief to

19

Rogers regarding his death sentence. See id. at 1-16.

20

In an order entered August 25, 2015 (ECF No. 167), this court set a schedule for the parties

21

to brief the issues to be considered on remand. In that regard, as a first step, Rogers was granted

22

sixty days -- to October 26, 2015 -- to file and serve a brief setting forth his position with respect to

23

each of the issues to be addressed on the remand of this case from the court of appeals.

24

On October 26, 2015, Rogers filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 168), requesting

25

an extension of time to March 24, 2016, to file his brief on remand. Rogers’ counsel state that the

26

extension of time is necessary because of the complexity of the case, because of their responsibilities

1

in other cases, and because of staffing shortages at the office of the Federal Public Defender.

2

Rogers’ counsel informed respondents’ counsel of the request for extension of time, and there

3

appears to be no opposition. The court finds that Rogers’ motion for extension of time is made in

4

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

5

Rogers requests. The court will grant that extension of time.

6
7
8
9

However, given the length of the extension of time granted here, the court will not look
favorably upon any motion to further extend this deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner shall have until and including
March 24, 2016, to file and serve a brief setting forth his position with respect to each of the issues

10

to be addressed on the remand of this case from the court of appeals, as described in the order

11

entered August 25, 2015 (ECF No. 167).

12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further

13

proceedings in this case shall be governed by the order entered August 25, 2015 (ECF No. 167).

14
15

3rd
Dated this _____ day of November, 2015.

16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2