Hernandez v. MCDANIEL et al

Filing 239

ORDER that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 238 ) is DENIED, as it is unnecessary. Respondents have until and including July 16, 2020, to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94 ) will remain in effect. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/10/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

FERNANDO NAVARRO HERNANDEZ,

8

Petitioner,

9

Case No. 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-WGC

v.

ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NO. 238)

10
11
12

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14

In this capital habeas corpus action, the Respondents filed a motion to dismiss

15

on December 24, 2019 (ECF No. 224). Petitioner Fernando Navarro Hernandez,

16

represented by appointed counsel, filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on

17

June 8, 2020 (ECF No. 234).

18

On June 9, 2020, ruling on a motion for extension of time filed by Hernandez, the

19

Court ordered that Hernandez had seven days, until June 16, 2020, to file any motion

20

for evidentiary hearing relative to the motion to dismiss. See Order entered June 9,

21

2020 (ECF No. 236). Hernandez did not file any such motion. In the June 9, 2020,

22

order, the Court ordered that, if Hernandez did not file a motion for evidentiary hearing,

23

Respondents’ reply in support of their motion to dismiss would be due 30 days after the

24

deadline for the motion for evidentiary hearing. See id. Thus, Respondents have until

25

and including July 16, 2020, to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.

26

On July 9, 2020, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 238),

27

requesting “a seven (7) day enlargement of time, to and including July 16, 2020” to file a

28

reply in support of their motion to dismiss. That motion is unnecessary; the reply is
1

1

already due on July 16. The motion for extension of time (ECF No. 238) will be denied

2

on that ground.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of

4

Time (ECF No. 238) is DENIED, as it is unnecessary. Respondents have until and

5

including July 16, 2020, to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss.

6

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

7

proceedings set forth in the order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94) will remain

8

in effect.

9
10

DATED this 10th day of July, 2020.

11
12
13

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2