McConnell vs E. K. McDaniel, et al

Filing 159

ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 158 ) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including June 15, 2023, to file their answer. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will have 120 days after Respondents file their answer to file a reply to the answer. See Order entered July 24, 2022 (ECF No. 151 ), p. 57. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered December 4, 2019 (ECF No. 91 ) will remain in effect. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/20/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:10-cv-00021-GMN-CSD Document 159 Filed 05/20/23 Page 1 of 2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5

ROBERT McCONNELL,

6

Petitioner,

7

v.

8

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

9

Respondents.

Case No. 3:10-cv-00021-GMN-CSD
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NO. 158)

10
11
12

In this capital habeas corpus action, after an initial period of 180 days following

13

the resolution of their motion to dismiss on July 24, 2022 (ECF No. 151), and then a

14

45-day extension of time, a 35-day extension of time, and another 35-day extension of

15

time, the respondents were to file their answer by May 18, 2023. See Order entered

16

July 24, 2022 (ECF No. 151) (180 days for answer); Order entered January 23, 2023

17

(ECF No. 153) (45-day extension); Order entered March 9, 2023 (ECF No. 155) (35-day

18

extension); Order entered April 14, 2023 (ECF No. 157) (35-day extension).

19

On May 18, 2023, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No.

20

158), requesting a further 28-day extension of time, to June 15, 2023, for their answer.

21

Respondents’ counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of his

22

obligations in other cases. Respondents’ counsel represents that Petitioner Robert

23

McConnell, who is represented by appointed counsel, does not oppose the motion for

24

extension of time.

25

The Court finds that Respondents’ motion for extension of time is made in good

26

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

27

requested extension of time.

28
1

Case 3:10-cv-00021-GMN-CSD Document 159 Filed 05/20/23 Page 2 of 2

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement

2

of Time (ECF No. 158) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including

3

June 15, 2023, to file their answer.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will have 120 days after Respondents

5

file their answer to file a reply to the answer. See Order entered July 24, 2022 (ECF

6

No. 151), p. 57. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in

7

the order entered December 4, 2019 (ECF No. 91) will remain in effect.

8
9

May
20 day of ______________________,
DATED THIS ___
2023.

10
11
12

GLORIA M. NAVARRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2