Byford v. Nevada Attorney General et al

Filing 110

ORDER - Respondents' motion for extension of time (ECF No. 106 ) is GRANTED. Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 107 ), filed September 25, 2020, will be treated as timely filed. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered October 24, 2019 (ECF No. 88 ) will remain in effect. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/28/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5
6
7

ROBERT ROYCE BYFORD,

Case No. 3:11-cv-00112-JCM-WGC

Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NO. 106)

v.

8

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

9

Respondents.

10
11
12

In this capital habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Robert Royce Byford, filed a

13

third amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 30, 2020 (ECF No. 92).

14

After an initial 90-day period, a 58-day extension of time, a 75-day extension of time,

15

and a 14-day extension of time, Respondents were due to respond to the third amended

16

habeas petition by September 9, 2020. See Order entered October 24, 2019 (ECF No.

17

88) (90 days for response); Order entered May 6, 2020 (ECF No. 101) (58-day

18

extension); Order entered July 2, 2020 (ECF No. 103) (75-day extension); Order

19

entered September 10, 2020 (ECF No. 105) (14-day extension).

20

On September 23, 2020, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF

21

No. 106), requesting a further 2-day extension of time. Then, on September 24, 2020,

22

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 107). Respondents’ counsel states that

23

the extension of time is necessary because of his obligations with respect to other

24

matters, and because of difficulty involved in preparing the response while working

25

remotely because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

26

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

27

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

28

extension of time.
1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ motion for extension of time

1
2

(ECF No. 106) is GRANTED. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 107), filed

3

September 25, 2020, will be treated as timely filed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further

4
5

proceedings set forth in the order entered October 24, 2019 (ECF No. 88) will remain in

6

effect.

7
8

September 28, 2020.
DATED THIS ___ day of ______________________, 2020.

9
10
11

JAMES C. MAHAN,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2