Mark A. Hanson VS Craig Farwell, et al.

Filing 112

ORDER granting ECF No. 111 Unopposed Motion re ECF No. 108 Third Amended Petition. Respondents' answers due 9/13/2016. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/5/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 10 MARK A. HANSON, Case No. 3:04-cv-00130-MMD-VPC Petitioner, 11 ORDER v. 12 13 CRAIG FARWELL, et al., Respondents. 14 15 16 In this habeas corpus action, brought by Nevada prisoner Mark A. Hanson, after 17 one 45-day extension of time, the respondents were to file an answer by July 15, 2016. 18 See Order entered April 1, 2016 (ECF No. 107); Order entered May 27, 2016 (ECF No. 19 110). 20 On July 14, 2016, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 21 111), requesting that the due date for their answer be extended to September 13, 2016 22 ― a further 60-day extension of time. Respondents’ counsel states that the extension of 23 time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases, as well as other personal 24 and professional obligations. The petitioner does not object. The Court finds that the 25 motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of 26 delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time. The Court will grant this 27 second extension of time. 28 The Court will not look favorably upon any motion to further extend this deadline. 1 It is therefore ordered that respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF 2 No. 111) is granted. Respondents will have until and including September 13, 2016, to 3 file their answer. 4 It is further ordered that, in all other respects, the schedule for further 5 proceedings set forth in the order entered January 12, 2016 (ECF No. 100) will remain 6 in effect. 7 DATED THIS 5th day of August 2016. 8 9 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?