Byford v. Nevada Attorney General et al

Filing 143

ORDER granting ECF No. 142 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 142) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including July 8, 2022, to file their answer (7/8/2022). Petitioner will the n have 180 days to file his reply. 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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedu re 25(d), William Reubart 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 James C. Mahan on 5/27/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

***
ROBERT ROYCE BYFORD,
Petitioner,

6

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NO. 142)

v.

7
8

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

WILLIAM REUBART, et al.,

9

Respondents.

10
11
12

In this capital habeas corpus action, after a 180-day initial period, and then a

13

90-day extension of time, Respondents had until May 24, 2022, to file an answer,

14

responding to the remaining claims in Petitioner Robert Royce Byford’s third amended

15

habeas petition. See Order entered August 27, 2021 (ECF No. 135) (180 days for

16

answer); Order entered March 1, 2022 (ECF No. 140) (90-day extension).

17

On May 24, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No.

18

142), requesting a further 45-day extension of time, to July 8, 2022. Respondents’

19

counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in

20

other cases, the loss of her co-counsel on the case, her administrative responsibilities,

21

and time away from her work. Petitioner does not oppose the motion for extension of

22

time.

23

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

24

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

25

extension of time requested.

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of

2

Time (ECF No. 142) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including

3

July 8, 2022, to file their answer. Petitioner will then have 180 days to file his reply. In all

4

other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered

5

October 24, 2019 (ECF No. 88) will remain in effect.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7

25(d), William Reubart is substituted for William Gittere as the respondent warden. The

8

Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect this change.

9
10

DATED THIS 27th
___ day of ______________________,
2022.
May

11
12
13

JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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