Goodlow v. Baca et al
Filing
64
ORDER granting ECF No. 63 Motion to Extend Time : Reply to ECF No. 61 Response re ECF No. 57 Motion to Dismiss due by 3/6/2024. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/5/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
DELJUAN MARKE GOODLOW,
7
8
9
Petitioner,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00364-MMD-CLB
ORDER
v.
NETHANJAH BREITENBACH, et al.,
10
Respondents.
11
12
In this habeas corpus action, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on October
13
26, 2023. (ECF No. 57.) Petitioner Deljuan Marke Goodlow, represented by appointed
14
counsel, filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 5, 2024. (ECF No. 61.)
15
Respondents were then to file their reply in support of the motion by February 5, 2024.
16
(See ECF No. 52.)
17
On February 5, 2024, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No.
18
63), requesting a 30-day extension, to March 6, 2024, to file the reply in support of their
19
motion to dismiss. Respondents’ counsel states that they need the extension of time
20
because of their obligations in other cases. Respondents’ counsel states that Goodlow
21
does not oppose the motion for extension of time. This would be the first extension of this
22
deadline. The Court finds that the motion for extension of time is made in good faith and
23
not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time
24
requested.
25
It is therefore ordered that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No.
26
63) is granted. Respondents will have until and including March 6, 2024 to file their reply
27
in support of their motion to dismiss. In all other respects, the schedule for further
28
proceedings set forth in the order entered July 28, 2023 (ECF No. 52) remains in effect.
1
DATED THIS 5th Day of February 2024.
2
3
4
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?