Nelson v. Warden Filson et al
Filing
50
ORDER granting ECF No. 49 Motion to Extend Time. Respondents have to and including March 5, 2021, to reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 44 ). Respondents have to and including March 5, 2021, to respond to the Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 48 ). Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/4/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
Case 3:18-cv-00029-RCJ-CLB Document 50 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
HEATHER D. PROCTER (Bar No. 8621)
Chief Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717
Phone: (775) 684-1271
Fax: (684-1108
HProcter@ag.nv.gov
Attorneys for Respondent
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
CHARLES NELSON,
13
14
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME (FIRST REQUEST)
Petitioner,
11
12
Case No. 3:18-cv-00029-RCJ-CLB
vs.
TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,
Respondents.
15
Respondents, by and through counsel, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of the State of Nevada,
16
hereby respectfully move this Court for an order granting a sixty (60) day enlargement of time, to and
17
including March 5, 2021, to reply in support of the motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 44, 47), currently due
18
January 4, 2021, and a fifth-three (53) day enlargement of time, also to and including March 5, 2021, to
19
respond to Nelson’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 48), currently due January 11, 2021.
20
This motion is based upon the provisions of Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
21
Procedure and the attached Declaration of Counsel, as well as all other papers, documents, records,
22
pleadings and other materials on file herein.
23
24
25
There has been no prior enlargement of Respondents’ time to file said responses, and this motion
is made in good faith and not for the purposes of delay.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 4th day of January, 2021.
26
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
27
By: /s/ Heather D. Procter
HEATHER D. PROCTER (Bar. No. 8621)
Chief Deputy Attorney General
28
1
Case 3:18-cv-00029-RCJ-CLB Document 50 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
AARON D. FORD
Attorney General
HEATHER D. PROCTER (Bar No. 8621)
Chief Deputy Attorney General
State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General
100 North Carson Street
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717
Phone: (775) 684-1271
Fax: (684-1108
HProcter@ag.nv.gov
Attorneys for Respondent
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
CHARLES NELSON,
11
Petitioner,
12
13
TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,
Respondents.
15
STATE OF NEVADA
16
CARSON CITY
18
19
DECLARATION OF COUNSEL
vs.
14
17
Case No. 3:18-cv-00029-RCJ-CLB
)
: ss.
)
I, HEATHER D. PROCTER, hereby states, based on personal knowledge and/or information and
belief, that the assertions of this declaration are true:
1.
I am the Chief Deputy Attorney General of the Post-Conviction Division of the Nevada
20
Attorney General’s Office, and I make this declaration on behalf of Respondents’ motion for enlargement
21
of time.
22
2.
By this motion, I am requesting a sixty (60) day enlargement of time, to and including March
23
5, 2021, to reply in support of the motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 44, 47), currently due January 4, 2021, and
24
a fifth-three (53) day enlargement of time, also to and including March 5, 2021, to respond to Nelson’s
25
motion for an evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 48), currently due January 11, 2021.
26
3.
This is my first request for an enlargement of time.
27
4.
As the motion for evidentiary hearing is directly linked to the motion to dismiss litigation,
28
Respondents seek to have the replies to both due the same day.
2
Case 3:18-cv-00029-RCJ-CLB Document 50 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 3
1
5.
Since the filing of Nelson’s opposition, I have been involved in defending federal and
2
state petitions, including Flanagan v. Gittere, 2:09-cv-0085-KJD-EJY (death penalty); Floyd v. Gittere,
3
2:06-cv-0471-RFB-CWH (death penalty); Hines v. Williams, 2:19-cv-1465-APG-VCF; Leonard v.
4
Gitttere, 2:99-cv-0360-MMD-DJ (death penalty); and Rippo v. Gittere, 2:07-cv-0507-APG-VCF (death
5
penalty). I also took annual leave, in addition to holiday leave, for the Thanksgiving, Christmas and New
6
Year’s holidays. During the pandemic, the Post-Conviction Division’s workload has increased to
7
encompass not only COVID-19-related litigation, but an increase in the number of evidentiary hearings
8
ordered by this Court as referenced above. As the Chief of the Post-Conviction Division, I have had to
9
respond to numerous issues with cases, deputies, and other division-related issues due to COVID-19,
10
including training a new deputy who started in August, and training other deputies as they take on
11
increasingly complex federal habeas matters. In addition, all State of Nevada employees must take one
12
day of furlough each month, currently from January to June 2021, though that will likely increase
13
following the 2021 Legislature. Finally, a deputy attorney general in the Carson Office recently resigned,
14
and I will need to cover her cases until a new deputy can be hired and trained. As such, I request a sixty
15
(60) day enlargement of time, to and including March 5, 2021, to reply in support of the motion to dismiss,
16
and a fifth-three (53) day enlargement of time, also to and including March 5, 2021, to respond to Nelson’s
17
motion for an evidentiary hearing.
18
19
6.
This motion for enlargement of time is made in good faith and not for the purpose of
unduly delaying the ultimate disposition of this case.
20
7.
21
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, Declarant herein certifies, under penalty of perjury, that the
22
I contacted counsel for Nelson, Mario Valencia, who has no objection to this enlargement.
foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ Heather D. Procter
HEATHER D. PROCTER
23
24
25
26
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 4th day of January, 2021.
27
28
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
3
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?