Guzman v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 96

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 95 ) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including September 18, 2023, to file responses to Petitioner's reply (ECF No. 92 ), motio n for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 93 ) and motion for evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 94 ). 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 7/5/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

Case 3:17-cv-00515-HDM-CLB Document 96 Filed 07/05/23 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

MARCO GUZMAN,

5

Petitioner,

6

v.

7

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

8

Respondents.

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

9
10

In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Marco Guzman, filed a reply to the

11

respondents’ answer on June 5, 2023 (ECF No. 92). On that date, Guzman also filed a

12

motion for leave to conduct discovery (ECF No. 93) and a motion for evidentiary hearing

13

(ECF No. 94). The scheduling order (ECF No. 54) granted Respondents thirty days—

14

until July 5, 2023—to file responses to Guzman’s reply, motion for leave to conduct

15

discovery and motion for evidentiary hearing.

16

On July 5, 2023, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 95),

17

requesting a 75-day extension of time, to September 18, 2023. Respondents’ counsel

18

states that she needs this extension of time because the post-conviction division of the

19

Attorney General’s office “is currently understaffed, making [her] caseload

20

extraordinarily heavy.” Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 95) at 3. Respondents’

21

counsel represents that Guzman, who is represented by appointed counsel, does not

22

oppose the motion for extension of time.

23

The Court finds that Respondents’ motion for extension of time is made in good

24

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

25

extension of time requested. The Court will grant this motion for extension of time.

26

However, given the nature of the filings at issue here, the length of this extension

27

of time, and the time that the briefing of the merits of this habeas petition has taken—

28

Respondents’ motion to dismiss was resolved on February 24, 2022, and it took some
1

Case 3:17-cv-00515-HDM-CLB Document 96 Filed 07/05/23 Page 2 of 2

1

ten months for Respondents to file their answer (ECF Nos. 74, 84)—the Court will not

2

further extend this deadline. If Respondents do not file responses to Guzman’s reply,

3

motion for leave to conduct discovery and motion for evidentiary hearing by

4

September 18, 2023, the Court will rule on Guzman’s petition and motions without

5

benefit of those responses.

6

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement

7

of Time (ECF No. 95) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including

8

September 18, 2023, to file responses to Petitioner’s reply, motion for leave to conduct

9

discovery and motion for evidentiary hearing. In all other respects, the schedule for

10

further proceedings set forth in the order entered January 19, 2021 (ECF No. 54) will

11

remain in effect.

12
13

DATED THIS 5th day of July, 2023.

14
15
16

HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2