O'Keefe v. LeGrand

Filing 124

ORDER granting ECF No. 109 Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to ECF No. 50 Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondents' answer/response due 6/1/2019. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 2/13/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
Case 3:14-cv-00477-RCJ-CBC Document 109 Filed 04/16/18 Page 1 of 3 6 ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General Michael J. Bongard (Bar. No. 7997) Deputy Attorney General State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 1539 Avenue F, Suite 2 Ely, NV 89301 (775) 289-1632 (phone) (775) 289-1653 (fax) mbongard@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Respondents 1 2 3 4 5 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 BRIAN KERRY O’KEEFE, 11 Petitioner, 12 vs. 13 ROBERT LEGRAND, et al., 14 Case No. 3:14-cv-00477-RCJ-VPC ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [ECF NO. 50] Respondents. (First Request) 15 16 Respondents, through legal counsel, Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General of The State of Nevada, 17 and Michael J. Bongard, Deputy Attorney General, hereby move this court for an additional thirty (30) 18 day enlargement of time, up to and including June 1, 2018, in which to respond to Petitioner’s Second 19 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. 20 (ECF No. 50). The response is currently due May 2, 2018. 21 Respondents base this motion on the declaration of Counsel. 22 This is Respondents’ first request for an extension of time in which to file the answer and made 23 24 25 26 27 28 in good faith and not for purposes of delay. DATED this 16th day of April, 2018. ADAM PAUL LAXALT Attorney General By: /s/ Michael J. Bongard________________ Michael J. Bongard (Bar No. 007997) Deputy Attorney General Page 1 of 3 Case 3:14-cv-00477-RCJ-CBC Document 109 Filed 04/16/18 Page 2 of 3 1 2 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. BONGARD 1. I am a Deputy Attorney General employed by the Attorney General’s Office of the State 3 of Nevada in the Bureau of Criminal Justice, and I make this declaration on behalf of Respondents’ 4 Motion for Enlargement of Time (First Request) in the above-captioned case. By this motion, I am 5 requesting an additional thirty (30) day enlargement of time, up to and including, June 1, 2018, to file 6 and serve the response to Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 7 2. Counsel has two other responses to federal habeas petitions due the week of May 2, 2018. 8 On May 2, 2018, Counsel has an answer due in O’Neill v. Williams, et al., USDC Case No. 3:11-cv-901- 9 MMD-VPC. On May 3, 2018, Counsel must file the supplemental brief in Rose v. Baker, Ninth Circuit 10 11 12 13 Case No. 17-15009. Counsel has already extended the deadlines in both of those cases. 3. Additionally, Counsel must travel to Elko, Nevada, on April 23, 2018, for a court hearing and to Las Vegas, Nevada for training on April 30-May 1, 2018. 4. Counsel inherited this case and the O’Neill case from attorneys who left the Attorney 14 General’s Office. Therefore, the answers in both cases will take additional time because Counsel must 15 familiarize himself with the records in both cases. Counsel must also prepare for additional court hearings 16 and file pleadings in cases comprising his state habeas and state criminal case loads. 17 5. For the reasons above, as well as the record in this case, counsel respectfully asks this 18 Court to grant the request for an extension of time of an additional thirty (30) days, up to June 1, 2018, 19 to file the answer to petitioner’s Second Amended Petition. 20 DATED this 16th day of April, 2018. 21 By: /s/ Michael J. Bongard________________ Michael J. Bongard (Bar No. 007997) Deputy Attorney General 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated Nunc Pro Tunc: April 16, 2018. 25 26 27 ________________________ ROBERT C. JONES 28 Page 2 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?