Byford v. Nevada Attorney General et al

Filing 151

ORDER - Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 150 ) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including December 30, 2022, to file their answer (re ECF No. 92 Amended Petition). Petitioner will then 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. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/26/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)

Case 3:11-cv-00112-JCM-CSD Document 151 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 2

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5
6
7
8
9

ROBERT ROYCE BYFORD,

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

Petitioner,
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NO. 150)

v.
WILLIAM REUBART, et al.,
Respondents.

10
11
12

In this capital habeas corpus action, after a 180-day initial period, a 90-day

13

extension of time, two 45-day extensions of time and a 35-day extension of time,

14

Respondents had until September 26, 2022, to file an answer, responding to the

15

remaining claims in Petitioner Robert Royce Byford’s third amended habeas petition.

16

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

17

entered March 1, 2022 (ECF No. 140) (90-day extension); Order entered May 27, 2022

18

(ECF No. 143) (45-day extension); Order entered July 15, 2022 (ECF No. 146) (45-day

19

extension); Order entered August 25, 2022 (ECF No. 149) (35-day extension of time).

20

On September 23, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF

21

No. 150), requesting a further 60-day extension of time, to November 25, 2022.

22

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

23

obligations in other cases. Respondents’ counsel states that Petitioner does not oppose

24

the motion for 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 an

27

extension of time. The Court is mindful of counsel’s apparently very heavy caseload

28
1

Case 3:11-cv-00112-JCM-CSD Document 151 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2 of 2

1

and will extend this deadline to December 30 instead of November 25, 2022 (95 days

2

instead of the requested 60). The Court does this with the expectation that this will be

3

the last request for extension of this deadline. The Court will not be inclined to further

4

extend this deadline absent extraordinary circumstances.

5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of

6

Time (ECF No. 150) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including

7

December 30, 2022, to file their answer. Petitioner will then have 180 days to file his

8

reply. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order

9

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

10
11

DATED September 26, 2022.

12
13
14

JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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