Byford v. Nevada Attorney General et al

Filing 126

ORDER granting ECF No. 125 Motion to Extend Time. Respondents' reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 107 ), and their responses to the motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 117 ) and motion for evidentiary he aring (ECF No. 119 ), will be due on June 9, 2021. 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 5/11/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

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. 125)

v.

8

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

9

Respondents.

10
11
12

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

13

represented by appointed counsel, filed a third amended petition for writ of habeas

14

corpus on January 30, 2020 (ECF No. 92). Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the

15

third amended petition on September 25, 2020 (ECF No. 107). On February 24, 2021,

16

Byford filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 116), along with a motion

17

for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 117) and a motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF

18

No. 119). After a 30-day initial period, and a 45-day extension of time, Respondents

19

were due on May 10, 2021, to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss, and

20

responses to the motion for leave to conduct discovery and motion for evidentiary

21

hearing. See Order entered October 24, 2019 (ECF No. 88) (30 days for reply); Order

22

entered March 31, 2021 (ECF No. 124) (45-day extension).

23

On May 7, 2021, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No.

24

125), requesting a 30-day extension of time, to June 9, 2021. Respondents’ counsel

25

states that the extension of time is necessary because of his obligations in other cases.

26

Petitioner does not oppose the motion for extension of time.

27
28
1

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

1
2

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

3

extension of time requested.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of

5

Time (ECF No. 125) is GRANTED. Respondents’ reply in support of their motion to

6

dismiss, and their responses to the motion for leave to conduct discovery and motion for

7

evidentiary hearing, will be due on June 9, 2021.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further

8
9
10

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

11
12

DATED May 11, 2021.of ______________________, 2021.
THIS ___ day

13
14
15

JAMES C. MAHAN,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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