Byford v. Nevada Attorney General et al

Filing 197

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 196 ) - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 196 ) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including March 15, 2023, to file t heir answer (3/15/2023). 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 1/6/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS)

Case 3:11-cv-00112-JCM-CSD Document 197 Filed 01/06/23 Page 1 of 2

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

ROBERT ROYCE BYFORD,

6

Petitioner,

7

v.

8
9

Case No. 3:11-cv-00112-JCM-CSD
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
(ECF NO. 196)

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, a 35-day extension of time, and then a

14

95-day extension of time, Respondents had until December 30, 2022, to file an answer,

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

entered May 27, 2022 (ECF No. 143) (45-day extension); Order entered July 15, 2022

19

(ECF No. 146) (45-day extension); Order entered August 25, 2022 (ECF No. 149) (35-

20

day extension); Order entered September 26, 2022 (ECF No. 151) (95-day extension).

21

On December 30, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time

22

(ECF No. 196), requesting a further 60-day extension of time, to February 28, 2023.

23

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

24

obligations in other cases, understaffing at the office of the Nevada Attorney General,

25

and personal health issues. Respondents’ counsel states that Petitioner Robert Royce

26

Byford, who is represented by appointed counsel, does not oppose the motion for

27

extension of time.

28
1

Case 3:11-cv-00112-JCM-CSD Document 197 Filed 01/06/23 Page 2 of 2

1

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

2

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

3

extension of time, and that there are extraordinary circumstances—the complexity of the

4

case, understaffing at the Attorney General’s office, counsel’s health issues—warranting

5

a further extension of time. In view of the circumstances in this case, as described in the

6

declaration of counsel attached to the motion for extension of time, the Court will extend

7

this deadline to March 15 instead of February 28, 2023 (75 days instead of the

8

requested 60). This means Respondents now will have had over 18 months to file their

9

answer, after the resolution of their motion to dismiss. Even under the circumstances as

10

described by Respondents’ counsel, that is enough. The Court will not further extend

11

this deadline absent extraordinary circumstances.

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of

13

Time (ECF No. 196) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including

14

March 15, 2023, to file their answer. Petitioner will then have 180 days to file his reply.

15

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

16

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

17
18

DATED January 6, 2023.

19
20
21

JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2