Cardenas-Ornelas v. Baker et al

Filing 64

ORDER granting ECF No. 63 Motion to Extend Time. Respondents' deadline to answer Petitioner's surviving claims is extended to October 1, 2020. No further extensions will be granted with respect to Respondents' Answer. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/8/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Case 3:17-cv-00461-MMD-CLB Document 64 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

LUIS CARDENAS-ORNELAS,

6
7
8

Petitioner,

11

ORDER

v.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
Respondents.

9
10

Case No. 3:17-cv-00461-MMD-CLB

This habeas matter is before the Court on Respondents’ second motion for
enlargement of time (ECF No. 63).

12

When a party moves to extend a deadline before the original time expires and the

13

stated reasons show good cause, the Court may grant the extension. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

14

6(b); LR IA 6-1. The “good cause” standard primarily considers the diligence of the party

15

seeking the extension. See In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d

16

716, 737 (9th Cir. 2013).

17

The Court’s prior order noted that the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (“CJRA”),

18

28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., sets a three-year goal to resolve each civil case on the merits,

19

including habeas matters. (ECF No. 62.) Given the age of this case, which was opened in

20

August 2017, counsel for both parties were directed to prioritize the deadlines in this case

21

over later-filed matters. (Id.) Counsel was also warned: “Further extensions of time are

22

not likely to be granted absent compelling circumstances and a strong showing of

23

good cause why the briefing could not be completed within the extended time

24

allowed despite the exercise of due diligence.” (Id. (emphasis in original).)

25

Respondents now seek a 28-day extension of time to answer Petitioner’s surviving

26

claims. The motion states that counsel has been unable to complete the answer due to

27

illness, which has put counsel behind in her work and necessitates the extension. Given

28

counsel’s representation, the Court will grant the requested extension, but no further

Case 3:17-cv-00461-MMD-CLB Document 64 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 2

1
2
3
4

extensions will be granted with respect to Respondents’ answer.
It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ second Motion for Enlargement of Time
(ECF No. 63) is granted.
DATED THIS 8th Day of September 2020.

5
6
7

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2