Cardenas v. Sandie et al

Filing 82

ORDER granting ECF No. 81 Motion to Extend Time. Reply due by 10/23/2023. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/23/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Rene L. Valladares
Federal Public Defender
Nevada State Bar No. 11479
*Laura Barrera
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Michigan State Bar No. P80957
411 E. Bonneville Ave., Ste. 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
[phone]
[e-mail]
*Attorney for Petitioner Joel Cardenas

9
10

U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT
D ISTRICT OF N EVADA

11
12

Joel Cardenas,

13
14
15
16

Petitioner,
v.
Dwight Neven, et al.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00476-MMD-CLB
Unopposed Motion for Extension
of Time to File Reply
(Second request)

Respondents.

17
18
19

Petitioner Joel Cardenas, by and through counsel, Laura Barrera, Assistant

20

Federal Public Defender, moves this Court for an extension of time of 62 days from

21

August 22, 2023, to and including October 23, 2023, to file the reply to answer to the

22
23
24
25
26
27

amended petition.

1

ARGUMENT

2

Petitioner Joel Cardenas filed a first amended petition on March 22, 2019.1 On

3

July 22, 2019, Respondents moved to dismiss that petition.2 Petitioner opposed the

4

motion to dismiss on November 18, 2019.3 On February 13, 2020, this Court granted

5

the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing Ground 6, and denied it in part. In the same

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

order, this Court sua sponte stayed the case in federal court to allow Cardenas to
exhaust state court remedies as to grounds 2 and 3.4
The case was reopened on April 21, 2022.5 Respondents filed a renewed motion
to dismiss on August 8, 2022.6 Cardenas filed an opposition on August 9, 2022.7 This
Court denied the renewed motion to dismiss on December 22, 2022, deferring ruling
on whether Cardenas can overcome the procedural default of Grounds 2 and 3 until

13

full merits review.8 This Court also ordered Respondents to file an answer on the

14

merits to all of Cardenas’s claims apart from Ground 6, which was previously

15

dismissed.9 Respondents filed their answer on April 24, 2023.10 The reply to the

16

answer is currently due on August 22, 2023.11 Cardenas respectfully requests an

17
18
1

ECF No. 39.

2

ECF No. 43.

3

ECF No. 53.

4

ECF No. 56.

22

5

ECF No. 60.

23

6

ECF No. 63.

24

7

ECF No. 68.

8

ECF No. 72 at 4-6.

9

ECF No. 72 at 6.

19
20
21

25
26
27

10

ECF No. 78.

11

ECF No. 80.
2

1

additional 62 days to file the reply. The additional period of time is necessary in order

2

to effectively represent Cardenas. This motion is filed in the interests of justice and

3

not for the purposes of unnecessary delay. This is Cardenas’s second request to

4

extend this deadline.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

The extension is needed due to undersigned counsel’s additional case-related
obligations since the previous request for an extension was filed, including filing an
opposition in Santiago v. Johnson, 2:21-cv-00896-APG-NJK on May 25, 2023; a
request for a certificate of appealability in Aberha v. Gittere, 23-15267 on May 30,
2023; an amended petition in Durr v. Warden, 2:22-cv-00732-JAD-NJK on June 27,
2023; a Ninth Circuit Oral Argument in San Francisco on July 19, 2023 in Harsh v.

12

Lawson, 21-16719; and filing an amended petition in Langford v. Baker, 3:19-cv-

13

00594-MMD-CSD on July 26, 2023. Additionally, counsel has had case-related travel

14

to the Reno area.

15

On August 22, 2023, Deputy Attorney General Michael Bongard stated via

16

email that he did not object to the extension, but the lack of objection should not be

17

construed as a waiver of any procedural defenses.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

///
///
///
///
///
///
///

26

///

27

///

3