Williams v. Baker et al

Filing 79

ORDER that Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 77 , 78 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/2/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4

MATHEW LEE WILLIAMS,

5
6
7

Case No. 3:16-cv-00505-MMD-CBC
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
Respondents.

8
9

This is a habeas corpus action. The Court issued an order (“Order”) on April 22,

10

2019, denying Petitioner Mathew Lee Williams’s motion to strike (ECF No. 72)

11

Respondents’ answer and granting Respondents’ motion for extension of time (ECF No.

12

74) to oppose Petitioner’s motion to strike. (ECF No. 76.) Petitioner moved to strike

13

Respondents’ answer on the ground that multiple attorneys have been assigned to

14

represent Respondents. (See ECF No. 72 at 2-3.)

15

Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondents’ motion for extension of time (ECF

16

No. 77), which the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration of the Order. Petitioner

17

also filed a motion for reconsideration of the portion of the Order denying his motion to

18

strike. (ECF No. 78.) Petitioner demonstrates no grounds for reconsideration of the Order.

19

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

20

Given that Respondents have filed an answer (ECF No. 66), and Williams has filed

21

a reply to the answer (ECF No. 71), the amended petition (ECF No. 39) is now fully

22

briefed. The Court will address its merits in due course, as its caseload allows.

23
24
25

It is therefore ordered that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 77,
78) is denied.
DATED THIS 2nd day of May 2019.

26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE