Williams v. Gentry et al

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 8 ) : Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9 ) will be treated as timely. Response to ECF No. 9 Motion to Dismiss due by 12/4/2017. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 10/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

NATHAN WILLIAMS,

9

Petitioner,

10

vs.

11

3:17-cv-00365-HDM-WGC

JOE GENTRY, et al.,

ORDER
12
13

Respondents.
_______________________________/

14
15

This action is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, by

16

Nathan Williams, a Nevada prisoner. Respondents were due to respond to Williams’ habeas petition

17

by October 2, 2017. See Order entered August 1, 2017 (ECF No. 5). On October 2, 2017,

18

respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 8), requesting a one-day extension of

19

time, and on October 3, 2017, respondents filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9).

20

In the motion for extension of time, respondents’ counsel states that the one-day extension of

21

time -- the only extension of time requested for this filing -- was necessary because of her obligations

22

in other cases. The court finds that respondents’ motion for extension of time was made in good

23

faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time

24

requested.

25

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time

26

(ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. Respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) will be treated as timely.

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further

2

proceedings set forth in the order entered August 1, 2017 (ECF No. 5) will remain in effect

3

(Williams has until December 4, 2017, to file a response to the motion to dismiss).

4

Dated this 12th day of October, 2017.

5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2