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

Filing 187

ORDERED that respondents' motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 185 and 186 ) are GRANTED. Respondents shall have until and including September 12, 2016, to file their responsive brief regarding the issues on remand and their response to p etitioner's motion for evidentiary hearing. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings in this case shall be governed by the order entered August 25, 2015 (ECF No. 167 ), and the order entered April 27, 2016 (ECF No. 176 ). Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/29/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

MARK ROGERS,

9

Petitioner,

10

vs.

11

3:02-cv-00342-GMN-VPC

RENEE BAKER, et al.,

ORDER
12
13

Respondents.
/

14
15

This capital habeas corpus action is on remand from the court of appeals. On April 25, 2016,

16

the petitioner, Mark Rogers, filed his brief, setting forth his position with respect to the issues to be

17

addressed on remand (ECF No. 174). Rogers also filed a motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No.

18

175). After two extensions of time, the first 32 days and the second 31 days, respondents were due

19

to file a response to petitioner’s brief, and a response to petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing,

20

by August 29, 2016. See Order entered August 25, 2015 (ECF No. 167); Order entered April 27,

21

2016 (ECF No. 176); Order entered May 16, 2016 (ECF No. 178); Order entered June 27, 2016

22

(ECF No. 181); Order entered August 5, 2016 (ECF No. 184).

23

On August 29, 2016, respondents filed a motion for extension of time requesting a third

24

extension of time for their responsive brief on remand (ECF No. 185), and for their response to

25

petitioner’s motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 186). Respondents request that those deadlines

26

be further extended to September 12, 2016 -- a 14-day extension of time. Respondents’ counsel

1

states that the extensions of time are necessary because of his busy schedule. The court finds that the

2

motions for extension of time are made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that

3

there is good cause for the extensions of time requested.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motions for extension of time (ECF

5

Nos. 185 and 186) are GRANTED. Respondents shall have until and including September 12,

6

2016, to file their responsive brief regarding the issues on remand and their response to petitioner’s

7

motion for evidentiary hearing.

8

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

9

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

10

and the order entered April 27, 2016 (ECF No. 176).

11
12

Dated this _____ day of August, 2016.
29

13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2