Williams v. Baker et al
Filing
48
ORDER granting ECF No. 47 Motion to Extend Time to respond to ECF No. 39 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondents' response/answer due 11/13/2017. In all other respects, the scheduled set forth in ECF No. 38 Order remains in effect. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 09/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
10
11
MATHEW LEE WILLIAMS,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00505-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
12
13
BRIAN E. WILLIAMS SR., et al.,
Respondents.
14
15
16
In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Mathew Lee Williams, has filed an
17
amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 34). Respondents were due to
18
respond to the amended petition by September 28, 2017. See Order entered June 30,
19
2017 (ECF No. 38).
20
On September 28, 2017, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF
21
No. 47), requesting a 46-day extension of time, to November 13, 2017, for their response
22
to Williams’ amended petition. Respondents’ counsel states that she needs the extension
23
of time because of her obligations in other cases.
24
The Court finds that respondents’ motion for extension of time is made in good
25
faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and there is good cause for the requested
26
extension of time.
27
It is therefore ordered that respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No.
28
47) is granted. Respondents will have until and including November 13, 2017, to respond
1
to the petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. In all other respects, the
2
schedule set forth in the order entered June 30, 2017 (ECF No. 38) remains in effect.
3
4
DATED THIS 28th day of September 2017.
5
6
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?