Morris v. Baker et al

Filing 28

ORDER granting 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , and 27 Motions to Extend Time re 11 Answer to 2 Petition. Within 15 days Respondents shall serve Petitioner with a copy of the answer and all exhibits filed in the instant action. Petitioner shall file a reply to the answer within 60 days. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/31/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

BRENT MORRIS,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

Case No. 3:14-cv-00444-LRH-WGC

RENEE BAKER, et al.,

13

ORDER

Respondents.

14
15

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

16

by a Nevada state prisoner. In this action, petitioner challenges the loss of time credits resulting

17

from the adjudication of prison disciplinary charges. Respondents have filed an answer to the

18

petition. (ECF No. 11). On February 4, 2015, the Court directed petitioner to file a reply to the

19

answer. (ECF No. 15). On May 11, 2015, the Court granted petitioner an extension of time to file a

20

reply. (ECF No. 20).

21

Petitioner since has filed several motions for extensions of time to file a reply to the answer.

22

(ECF Nos. 21, 22, 23, 24, 27). Petitioner contends that he has been unable to file a reply because

23

boxes of his legal documents were confiscated by prison staff. (Id.). The confiscated materials

24

apparently included Exhibits 1-31, which respondents filed in this action. (ECF Nos. 12-13). On

25

January 25, 2016, respondents filed a response to petitioner’s motion for an extension in which they

26

indicate that they will mail another copy of the answer and exhibits to petitioner. (ECF No. 25, at p.

27

3). The proof of service attached to the response indicates that on January 25, 2016, respondents

28

served petitioner with copies of the exhibits consisting of the state court record. (ECF No. 25, at p.

1

4). However, in petitioner’s most recent motion for an extension, filed March 21, 2016, petitioner

2

contends that, perhaps due to clerical error, he did not receive a copy of the answer and exhibits

3

filed in this action when respondents sent him copies of documents from another case in January

4

2016. (ECF No. 27, at p. 3). The Court directs respondents to serve petitioner with a copy of the

5

answer and exhibits filed in the instant case. Good cause appearing, the Court grants petitioner’s

6

motion for an extension of sixty additional days in which to file a reply to the answer.

7
8
9

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for extension (ECF Nos. 21, 22,
23, 24, 27) to file a reply to the answer are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within fifteen (15) days from the date of entry of this

10

order, respondents SHALL SERVE petitioner with a copy of the answer and all exhibits filed in the

11

instant action.

12
13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this
order, petitioner SHALL FILE a reply to the answer.

14
DATED this 31st day of March, 2016.
15
16
17

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-