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)
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?