Rosales v. Byrne et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting ECF No. 42 Motion to Extend Time : Reply to ECF No. 41 Response re ECF No. 38 Motion to Stay Case due by 5/31/2018. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 5/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
7 RENE L. VALLADARES Federal Public Defender Nevada State Bar No. 11479 JEREMY C. BARON Assistant Federal Public Defender District of Columbia Bar No. 1021801 411 E. Bonneville Ave. Suite 250 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 (702) 388-6577 (702) 388-6419 (fax) jeremy_baron@fd.org 8 Attorneys for Petitioner Gary Craig Rosales 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 GARY CRAIG ROSALES, Petitioner, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 v. Q. BYRNE, et al., Respondents. Case No. 3:16-cv-00003-RCJ-WGC UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR STAY (First Request) Petitioner Gary Craig Rosales hereby moves this Court for an extension of time of fourteen (14) days, from May 17, 2018, to and including May 31, 2018, in which to file a reply in support of Mr. Rosales’s April 26, 2018, motion for a stay (ECF No. 38). POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 2 1. Mr. Rosales filed a counseled amended petition in this case on October 3 28, 2016. ECF No. 15. The respondents filed a partial motion to dismiss on May 23, 4 2017 (ECF No. 25), and Mr. Rosales opposed that motion (ECF No. 26). The Court 5 issued an order resolving the motion to dismiss on March 27, 2018. ECF No. 37. It 6 rejected the respondents’ argument that some of the claims in the amended petition 7 were untimely. But the Court agreed that Grounds One, Two, Three, and Four were 8 unexhausted. The Court ordered Mr. Rosales to respond accordingly. Id. at 8. 9 2. In response to the Court’s order, undersigned counsel filed on Mr. 10 Rosales’s behalf a motion requesting that the Court stay the case and hold it in 11 abeyance while Mr. Rosales exhausts his claims in state court. ECF No. 38. The 12 respondents filed an opposition to the motion on May 10, 2018. ECF No. 41. Mr. 13 Rosales’s reply in support of his motion is due on May 17, 2018. 14 3. Undersigned counsel has made diligent efforts to prepare and file the 15 reply by the deadline. However, undersigned counsel respectfully suggests that 16 additional time is necessary in order to file the reply. 17 4. In their opposition, the respondents argue (among other things) that Mr. 18 Rosales does not have good cause for a stay because state post-conviction counsel 19 made a strategic decision not to pursue the unexhausted claims during the prior state 20 post-conviction proceedings. Additional time is necessary to evaluate and respond to 21 that argument. 22 5. Undersigned counsel has had many professional obligations in the past 23 week, including, among others, a multi-day training seminar held on May 10 and 24 May 11, 2018; an amended petition filed on May 14, 2018, in Elliott v. McDaniel, Case 25 No. 3:11-cv-00041-MMD-VPC (D. Nev.); second-chairing an oral argument held in 26 San Francisco on May 16, 2018, in LaPena v. Grigas, Case No. 15-16154 (9th Cir.); 2 1 and a second motion for discovery filed on May 17, 2018, along with the close of 2 discovery on May 17, 2018, in Slaughter v. Baker, Case No. 3:16-cv-00721-RCJ-WGC 3 (D. Nev.). 4 6. Undersigned counsel has many additional professional obligations in 5 the coming weeks, including, among others, an amended petition due on May 21, 6 2018, in Burch v. Baker, Case No. 2:17-cv-00656-MMD-VCF (D. Nev.); an opening 7 brief due on May 21, 2018, in Mercado v. State, Case No. 74513 (Nev. Sup. Ct.); and 8 an amended petition due on May 30, 2018, in Howard v. Wickham, Case No. 3:16-cv- 9 00665-HDM-VPC (D. Nev.). 10 7. Therefore, undersigned counsel seeks an additional fourteen (14) days, 11 up to and including May 31, 2018, in which to file the reply in support of the motion 12 for a stay. This is undersigned counsel’s first request for an extension of time in 13 which to file the reply. 14 8. On May 17, 2018, undersigned counsel contacted Deputy Attorney 15 General Erin L. Bittick and informed her of this request for an extension of time. As 16 a matter of professional courtesy, Ms. Bittick had no objection to the request. Ms. 17 Bittick’s lack of objection should not be considered as a waiver of any procedural 18 defenses or statute of limitations challenges, or construed as agreeing with the 19 accuracy of the representations in this motion. 20 9. This motion is not filed for the purpose of delay, but in the interests of 21 justice, as well as in the interest of Mr. Rosales. Undersigned counsel respectfully 22 requests that this Court grant this motion and order Mr. Rosales to file the reply in 23 support of his motion for a stay (ECF No. 38) no later than May 31, 2018. 24 25 26 3 1 Dated this 17th day of May, 2018. 2 3 Respectfully submitted, 4 RENE L. VALLADARES Federal Public Defender 5 /s/Jeremy C. Baron 6 JEREMY C. BARON Assistant Federal Public Defender 7 8 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED: 11 12 ______________________________ United States District Judge 13 14 Dated: ________________________ May 17, 2018 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 I hereby certify that on May 17, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with 3 the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, District of Nevada by 4 using the CM/ECF system. 5 6 Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system and include: Erin L. Bittick. 7 I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered 8 CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing by First-Class Mail, postage pre-paid, or 9 have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within three 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 calendar days, to the following non-CM/ECF participants: Gary Craig Rosales No. 1009803 Lovelock Correctional Center 1200 Prison Road Lovelock, NV 89419 /s/ Jessica Pillsbury An Employee of the Federal Public Defender 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5

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?