Elliott v. McDaniel et al

Filing 71

ORDER - Respondents' third and fourth motions for extension of time to file a responsive pleading (ECF Nos. 57 , 59 ) are both granted nunc pro tunc. Petitioner's first and second motions for extension of time to file an op position to the motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 64 , 65 ) are both granted nunc pro tunc. Respondents' unopposed motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 68 / 69 ) is granted Respondents must file their reply to ECF No. 66 Response re ECF No. 60 Motion to Dismiss on or before July 5, 2019. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/30/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ROBERT W. ELLIOTT,

10

Case No. 3:11-cv-00041-MMD-CBC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
E.K. MCDANIEL, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

Robert W. Elliott’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

15

is before the court on several motions to extend time by both parties. The Court finds that

16

good cause exists to grant the motions.
It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ third and fourth motions for extension of

17
18

time to file a responsive pleading (ECF Nos. 57, 59) are both granted nunc pro tunc.

19

It is further ordered that Petitioner’s first and second motions for extension of time

20

to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 64, 65) are both granted nunc pro

21

tunc.

22

It is further ordered that Respondents’ unopposed motion for extension of time to

23

file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 68) is granted. Respondents

24

must file their reply on or before July 5, 2019.

25

DATED THIS 30th day of May 2019.

26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE