Hernandez v. MCDANIEL et al
Filing
335
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 334 ) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including June 6, 2024, to file their responses to Petitioner's amended reply, motion fo r leave to conduct discovery, and motion for evidentiary hearing. 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 eff ect. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), John Henley 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 3/12/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
5
FERNANDO NAVARRO HERNANDEZ,
6
Petitioner,
7
v.
8
9
Case No. 3:09-cv-00545-LRH-CSD
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NO. 334)
JOHN HENLEY, et al.,
Respondents.
10
11
In this capital habeas corpus action, the Court ordered the parties to file
12
supplemental briefing—an amended answer by Respondents, an amended reply by
13
Petitioner Fernando Navarro Hernandez, and a response to the amended reply by
14
Respondents—in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shinn v. Ramirez, 142 S.
15
Ct. 1718 (2022). See Order entered June 28, 2022 (ECF No. 307). Respondents filed
16
their amended answer on March 17, 2023 (ECF No. 317). Hernandez filed his amended
17
reply on August 14, 2023 (ECF No. 322). On August 14, 2023, Hernandez also filed a
18
motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 324), and a motion for evidentiary hearing
19
(ECF No. 325). After a 30-day initial period, a 44-day extension of time, a 74-day
20
extension of time and a 59-day extension of time, Respondents were due to respond to
21
Hernandez’s amended reply, motion for leave to conduct discovery, and motion for
22
evidentiary hearing, by March 8, 2024. See Order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No
23
94) (30 days for response to reply; responses to motions to be filed with response to
24
reply); Order entered September 14, 2023 (ECF No. 327) (44-day extension); Order
25
entered October 30, 2023 (ECF No. 330) (74-day extension), Order entered January 12,
26
2024 (ECF No. 332) (59-day extension).
27
On March 7, 2024, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No.
28
334), requesting a further 90-day extension of time, to June 6, 2024, for their responses
1
1
to Herrnandez’s amended reply, motion for leave to conduct discovery, and motion for
2
evidentiary hearing. Respondents’ counsel states that this extension of time is necessary
3
because of her obligations in other cases, serious personal health issues, and time that
4
she expects to be away from work over the next four months. Respondents’ counsel
5
states that Hernandez, who is represented by appointed counsel, does not oppose the
6
motion for extension of time.
7
The Court finds that Respondents’ motion for extension of time is made in good
8
faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the requested
9
extension of time.
10
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Extension of Time
11
(ECF No. 334) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including June 6, 2024, to
12
file their responses to Petitioner’s amended reply, motion for leave to conduct discovery,
13
and motion for evidentiary hearing.
14
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further
15
proceedings set forth in the order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94) will remain in
16
effect.
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
18
25(d), John Henley is substituted for William Gittere as the respondent warden. The Clerk
19
of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect this change.
20
DATED THIS 12th day of March, 2024.
21
22
23
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?