Hernandez v. MCDANIEL et al

Filing 299

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME granting ECF No. 298 Motion to Extend Time. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioners Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 298) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including May 4, 202 2, to file his reply. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rul e of Civil Procedure 25(d), William Reubart is substituted for William Gittere as the respondent warden. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect this change. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 5/2/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJD)

Case 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-CSD Document 299 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 2

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-CSD

v.

10
11

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NO. 298)

WILLIAM REUBART, et al.,
Respondents.

12
13

In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed their answer on

14

July 14, 2021 (ECF No. 285). Then, after an initial 45-day period, an 88-day extension

15

of time, two 60-day extensions of time, and a 30-day extension of time, the petitioner,

16

Fernando Navarro Hernandez, represented by appointed counsel, was due to file a

17

reply by April 27, 2022. See Order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94) (45 days for

18

reply); Order entered August 31, 2021 (ECF No. 289) (88-day extension); Order entered

19

December 2, 2021 (ECF No. 291) (60-day extension); Order entered February 1, 2022

20

(ECF No. 294) (60-day extension); Order entered April 8, 2022 (30-day extension).

21

On April 27, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 298),

22

requesting a further 7-day extension of time, to May 4, 2022. Petitioner’s counsel states

23

that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases.

24

Petitioner’s counsel also states: “I anticipate this will be the final request for extension of

25

time.” Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 298), p. 4, lines 6–7. Respondents do not

26

oppose the motion for extension of time.

27
28
1

Case 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-CSD Document 299 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 2

1

The Court finds that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith and

2

not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of

3

time requested.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time

5

(ECF No. 298) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including May 4, 2022, to file

6

his reply.

7

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

8

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

9

in effect.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

11

25(d), William Reubart is substituted for William Gittere as the respondent warden. The

12

Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect this change.

13
14

DATED THIS 2nd day of May, 2022.

15
16
17

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2