Peter Quinn Elvik VS Don Bunce, et al.
Filing
140
ORDER that 139 Motion for an Extension of 180 days, to and including 9/26/17, in which to Commence Jury Selection in the Re-Trial is GRANTED. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/25/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8
9
10
PETER QUINN ELVIK,
11
Petitioner,
12
vs.
13
DON BUNCE, et al.,
14
Case No. 3:04-cv-00471-GMN-WGC
Respondents.
ORDER
15
16
This action is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by a
17
Nevada state prisoner represented by counsel. This Court previously granted a conditional writ of
18
habeas corpus, consistent with the terms set forth in the Court’s order of December 3, 2015. (ECF
19
Nos. 100 &101). The order gave the State of Nevada 120 days to commence jury selection in the re20
trial, following the filing of the notice of election to retry petitioner. (Id.). Following appeal
21
proceedings, on November 30, 2016, respondents filed a notice of intent to retry petitioner,
22
triggering the deadline for initiating a new trial. (ECF No. 138). The current deadline for
23
commencing jury selection is March 30, 2017. Respondents have filed a motion for an extension of
24
180 days, to and including September 26, 2017, to commence jury selection in the re-trial.
25
Petitioner’s counsel do not oppose the motion. Having reviewed the motion and good cause
26
appearing, respondents’ motion is granted.
27
28
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion for an extension of 180 days, to
2
and including September 26, 2017, in which to commence jury selection in the re-trial (ECF No.
3
139) is GRANTED.
4
25
Dated this ______ day of January, 2017.
5
6
7
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court
8
9
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?