Reberger v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 86

ORDER that ECF No. 85 respondents' second motion for extension of time to file reply to ECF No. 66 motion to dismiss is granted in part. Respondents' reply due by 3/14/2018. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10

LANCE REBERGER,

11

Case No. 3:13-cv-00071-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
12
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
16

This counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

17

is before the Court on respondents’ second motion for extension of time to file a reply in

18

support of their motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 85). The Court previously granted

19

respondents’ request for a three-week extension of time based on counsel’s demanding

20

schedule. (ECF No. 84; ECF No. 83.) Respondents’ current motion seeks another three-

21

week extension for a similar reason—demands on counsel’s schedule.1 (ECF 85.)

22

Because the Court already granted an extension for a similar reason and because the

23

Court endeavors to resolve the pending motion to dismiss by the end of March, the Court

24

denies the requested three-week extension. However, the Court will give respondents

25

until March 14, 2018, to file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss.

26
27
28

1In

fact, the only difference between the two declarations supporting the extension
motions appears to be counsel’s progress in responding to a 250-page Fourth Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due in another case on March 26, 2018. (Compare
ECF No. 83, ¶ 2 with ECF No. 85, ¶ 2.)

1
2
3

It is therefore ordered that respondents’ second motion for extension of time (ECF
No. 85) is granted in part.
DATED THIS 6th day of March 2018.

4
5
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2