Guzman v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 83

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents' Motions for Enlargement of Time (ECF Nos. 81 and 82 ) are GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including December 2, 2022, to file their answer (12/2/2022). In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered January 19, 2021 (ECF No. 54 ) will remain in effect. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 11/21/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS)

Case 3:17-cv-00515-HDM-CLB Document 83 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

MARCO GUZMAN,

5

Petitioner,

6

v.

7
8

Case No. 3:17-cv-00515-HDM-CLB
ORDER

CALVIN JOHNSON, et al.,
Respondents.

9
10

In this habeas corpus action, after a 120-day period following the resolution of

11

the respondents’ motion to dismiss, a 60-day extension of time, a 45-day extension of

12

time, and a 34-day extension of time, Respondents were due to file an answer by

13

November 10, 2022. See Order entered February 24, 2022 (ECF No. 74) (resolving

14

motion to dismiss); Order entered June 27, 2022 (ECF No. 76) (60-day extension);

15

Order entered August 24, 2022 (ECF No. 78) (45-day extension); Order entered

16

October 13, 2022 (ECF No. 80) (34-day extension). The order granting the last of those

17

extensions of time stated, with emphasis: “the Court will not be inclined to further extend

18

this deadline absent extraordinary circumstances.” Order entered October 13, 2022

19

(ECF No. 80), p. 1.

20

On November 10, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time

21

(ECF No. 81), requesting a further 7-day extension of time, to November 17, 2022, and

22

on November 18, 2022, Respondents filed yet another motion for extension of time

23

(ECF No. 82), requesting that the deadline be extended, by another 15 days, to

24

December 2, 2022.

25

In the November 10, motion for extension of time, Respondents’ counsel did not

26

assert that extraordinary circumstances necessitated the extension of time. Rather,

27

Respondents’ counsel stated only that on the day the answer was due she “noticed two

28

significant errors, which require[d] [her] to expend additional time and effort to resolve.”
1

Case 3:17-cv-00515-HDM-CLB Document 83 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 3

1

Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 81), pp. 2–3. Counsel stated that she hoped to

2

file the answer the next day, but “request[ed] an additional week to rectify the error in an

3

abundance of caution.” Id. at 3. Counsel stated that the petitioner, Marco Guzman,

4

represented by appointed counsel, did not oppose that motion for extension of time.

5

Ibid.

6

Respondents, however, did not file their answer by the November 17 due date

7

they suggested, but, rather, filed another motion for extension of time on November 18,

8

requesting that the deadline be extended by another 15 days, to December 2. Motion

9

for Extension of Time (ECF No. 82). In that motion, Respondents still did not mention

10

the Court’s warning that it would not be inclined to extend this deadline absent

11

extraordinary circumstances. See id. Rather, Respondents sought to excuse the filing of

12

the motion for extension of time a day after the deadline they had requested in the prior

13

motion for extension of time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); LR IA 6-1. Attached to the motion

14

for extension of time is a declaration of the Chief Deputy of the Nevada Attorney

15

General’s Post-Conviction Division, stating that Respondents’ counsel was busy during

16

the week of November 14, was “battling severe flu symptoms,” was “unable to sleep for

17

several days,” became violently ill on November 17, and “fell asleep and did not wake

18

up until after 1:00 p.m. on November 18, 2022.” See Motion for Extension of Time (ECF

19

No. 82), p. 5. The Chief Deputy states further that Respondents’ counsel “planned to

20

travel for the Thanksgiving holiday [but] may postpone her plans due to her illness.” Id.

21

The Chief Deputy states that Respondents’ counsel “does not intend to be back in the

22

office until November 30, either following her annual leave or after she has allowed her

23

body to heal from her recent illness.” Ibid. Finally, the Chief Deputy states that

24

Respondents’ counsel “will finish her answer by December 2, 2022.” Ibid.

25

Under these circumstances, the Court will grant both motions for extensions of

26

time, and will extend to December 2, 2022, the time for Respondents to file their

27

answer. The Court will do so in the interests of justice—that is, to resolve this action on

28

the merits of the petitioner’s claims, with the benefit of an answer from the respondents.
2

Case 3:17-cv-00515-HDM-CLB Document 83 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 3