Hernandez v. MCDANIEL et al

Filing 316

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 315 ) - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 315 ) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including March 17, 2023, to file t heir amended answer (3/17/2023). 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 Fe deral Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), William Gittere is substituted for William Reubart as the respondent warden. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect this change. (Party substitution updated by Clerk.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/14/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS)

Case 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-CSD Document 316 Filed 03/14/23 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

FERNANDO NAVARRO HERNANDEZ,

8

Petitioner,

9

v.

10

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

11

Respondents.

Case No. 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-CSD
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NO. 315)

12
13

In this capital habeas corpus action, the Court has ordered the parties to file

14

supplemental briefing—an amended answer by Respondents, followed by an amended

15

reply by Petitioner Fernando Navarro Hernandez, followed by a response to the

16

amended reply by Respondents—in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shinn

17

v. Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718 (2022). See Order entered June 28, 2022 (ECF No. 307).

18

Following a 60-day initial period (see Order entered June 28, 2022 (ECF No. 307)), a

19

91-day extension of time (ECF No. 310), a 60-day extension of time (ECF No. 312), and

20

a 45-day extension of time (ECF No. 314), Respondents’ amended answer was due on

21

March 13, 2023.

22

On March 13, 2023, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF

23

No. 315), requesting a further 4-day extension of time, to March 17, 2023, for their

24

amended answer. Respondents’ counsel states that Hernandez, who is represented by

25

appointed counsel, does not oppose the motion for extension of time.

26

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

27

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

28

time requested.
1

Case 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-CSD Document 316 Filed 03/14/23 Page 2 of 2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement

2

of Time (ECF No. 315) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including

3

March 17, 2023, to file their amended answer.

4

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

5

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

6

in effect.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11

DATED THIS 14th day of March, 2023.

12
13
14

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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