Wilson v. LeGrand et al

Filing 24

ORDER granting 20 and 22 Motions to Extend Time re 21 Motion to Dismiss. Reply shall be filed within 15 days. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/1/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

MICHAEL DUANE WILSON,

9

Petitioner,

10

vs.

11

ROBERT LeGRAND, et al.,

12

3:14-cv-00071-RCJ-VPC

Respondents.

ORDER

13

_____________________________________/

14
15
16
17

In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Michael Duane Wilson, is represented by counsel.
On January 29, 2015, Wilson filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 14).
On March 30, 2015, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 20),

18

requesting a two-day extension of time, to April 1, 2015, to respond to Wilson’s amended habeas

19

petition. And, on April 1, 2015, respondents filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21). Wilson did

20

not oppose the motion for extension of time. The court finds that the motion for extension of time

21

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

22

extension of time that respondents requested. The court will grant respondents’ motion for extension

23

of time, and will treat the motion to dismiss as timely filed.

24

On May 6, 2015, Wilson filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 22), requesting

25

a 5-day extension of the time to respond to the motion to dismiss, extending that deadline to

26

May 6, 2015. Wilson then filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 6, 2015 (ECF

1

No. 23). Respondents do not oppose Wilson’s motion for extension of time. The court finds that the

2

motion for extension of time was made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that

3

there is good cause for the extension of time that Wilson requested. The court will grant the motion

4

for extension of time, and will treat the opposition to the motion to dismiss as timely filed.
The court will also sua sponte extend the time for respondents to file a reply in support of

5
6

their motion to dismiss.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ motion for extension of time (ECF

8

No. 20) is GRANTED. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) shall be treated as timely

9

filed.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for extension of time (ECF

11

No. 22) is GRANTED. Petitioner’s opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) shall be

12

treated as timely filed.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents shall have 15 days from the date of entry of

14

this order to file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss. The court will not be inclined to further

15

extend this deadline.

16
17

st
Dated this 1_____of June,May, 2015.
Dated this day day of 2015.

18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2