Guzman v. State of Nevada et al
ORDER that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 35 ) is GRANTED. The respondents will have until January 22, 2019, to file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 28 ) and their response to the petitioner's motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. [33). In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered October 2, 2017 (ECF No. 8 ) will remain in effect. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 12/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:17-cv-00515-HDM-CBC
ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,
In this habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on
August 14, 2018 (ECF No. 28). The petitioner, Marco Guzman, represented by counsel,
filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 32), along with a motion for leave
to conduct discovery (ECF No. 33), on November 29, 2018. Respondents were then to
file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss, and a response to the motion for leave
to conduct discovery, by December 31, 2018. See Order entered October 2, 2017 (ECF
No. 8) (30 days for reply in support of motion to dismiss; response to motion for leave to
conduct discovery due at same time; December 29 is a Saturday).
On December 6, 2018, apparently believing, inaccurately, that the reply to the
motion to dismiss was due on that date, the respondents filed a motion for an
extension of time (ECF No. 35), requesting an extension of time to January 20, 2019.
January 20, 2019, is a Sunday, and Monday, January 21, 2019, is a holiday, so the
extension requested by respondents would actually be to January 22, 2019.
Respondents describe the requested extension of time as a 46-day extension; in fact, it
would be a 22-day extension – from December 31, 2018, to January 22, 2019.
Respondents’ counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of
her obligations in other cases, and because of time away from her office. The petitioner
does not oppose the motion for extension of time.
The Court finds that Respondents’ motion for extension of time is made in good
faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the
requested extension of time. The Court will grant the requested extension of time.
The Court will not be inclined to further extend this deadline. And, furthermore,
the Court will not look favorably upon any motion by the petitioner to extend the time to
file his reply in support of his motion for leave to conduct discovery (Petitioner will have
20 days to file that reply. See Order entered October 2, 2017 (ECF No. 8).).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of
Time (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED. The respondents will have until January 22, 2019, to
file their reply in support of their motion to dismiss and their response to the petitioner’s
motion for leave to conduct discovery.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further
proceedings set forth in the order entered October 2, 2017 (ECF No. 8) will remain in
DATED THIS ___ day of ______________________, 2018.
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?