Follett v. LeGrand et al

Filing 13

ORDERED that the stipulation (ECF No. 12) is REJECTED, as it is unnecessary. Petitioner's response to respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4 ) is due November 2, 2016. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents' motion for waiver of compliance with certain local rules (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED as described above. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 9/16/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9

LOREN RAYMOND FOLLETT

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

ROBERT LeGRAND, et al.,

13

3:16-cv-00370-HDM-WGC

Respondents.

ORDER

14

_________________________________/

15
16

In this habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) on

17

August 31, 2016. Petitioner Loren Raymond Follett’s response to the motion to dismiss is due on

18

November 2, 2016. See Order entered July 6, 2016 (ECF No. 2) (60 days for response to motion to

19

dismiss); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days to the time for response to a motion when

20

the motion is served by electronic means).

21

On September 14, 2016, Follett filed a stipulation of the parties agreeing to an “extension” of

22

the time for him to respond to the motion to dismiss, to October 10, 2016 (ECF No. 12). The court

23

will reject that stipulation, as it is unnecessary, as Follett already has until November 2, 2016, to

24

respond to the motion to dismiss.

25
26

When respondents filed their motion to dismiss, on August 31, 2016, respondents also filed a
motion (ECF No. 5) requesting waiver of certain local rules. Specifically, respondents request an

1

exemption from LR IA 10-3(e), which requires that the cover sheet for each filed exhibit must

2

include a description of the exhibit, and LR IA 10-3(I), which concerns the manner of filing of

3

exhibits. The court finds that there is good cause for the exemptions requested by respondents.

4

Respondents have filed a number of exhibits in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 6-11);

5

the manner in which respondents filed their exhibits, and submitted courtesy copies of them to the

6

court, is sufficient.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stipulation filed by petitioner on September 14,

8

2016 (ECF No. 12) is REJECTED, as it is unnecessary. Petitioner’s response to respondents’

9

motion to dismiss is due November 2, 2016.

10
11
12

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondents’ motion for waiver of compliance with
certain local rules (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED as described above.
Dated this 16th day of September, 2016.

13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2