Towles v. Baca et al

Filing 37

ORDER that respondents' second and third motions to extend time to file an answer (ECF Nos. 27 and 30 ) are both GRANTED nunc pro tunc; petitioner's motion to deny enlargement of time (ECF No. 28 ) and motion to grant petitioner's claims in full (ECF No. 32 ) are both DENIED. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 3/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

DEE V. TOWLES,

10

Case No. 3:16-cv-00050-HDM-WGC
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
11
BACA, et al.,
12
Respondents.
13
14

This habeas matter is before the court on respondents’ motions to extend time to

15

file an answer to the petition. Petitioner Dee V. Towles objected to the extensions of

16

time, and in response, filed a motion to deny an extension and a motion to grant

17

petitioner’s claims in full. However, the court concludes that good cause exists to grant

18

the motions for extensions of time.

19

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ second and third motions to

20

extend time to file an answer (ECF Nos. 27 and 30) are both GRANTED nunc pro tunc.

21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to deny enlargement of time

22

(ECF No. 28) and motion to grant petitioner’s claims in full (ECF No. 32) are both

23

DENIED.

24

DATED: March 14, 2018.

25
26
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
1