Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Archanian v. Gittere, 3:19-cv-00177-APG-CBC. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190612d51 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF No. 12) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, petitioner Avetis Archanian is represented by appointed counsel. Archanian is scheduled to file an amended habeas petition by July 22, 2019. See ECF No. 11 (90 clays for amended petition (July 21 is a Sunday)). On May 20, 2019, Archanian moved for an 87-day extension of that deadline, to October 17, 2019. ECF No. 12. Archanian contends the extension is necess
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF No. 12)

In this capital habeas corpus action, petitioner Avetis Archanian is represented by appointed counsel. Archanian is scheduled to file an amended habeas petition by July 22, 2019. See ECF No. 11 (90 clays for amended petition (July 21 is a Sunday)). On May 20, 2019, Archanian moved for an 87-day extension of that deadline, to October 17, 2019. ECF No. 12. Archanian contends the extension is necessaiy because of the complexity of this action and the work necessaiy to prepare the amended petition. Archanian's motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and there is good cause for the extension of time requested. I will grant the motion.

In the motion for extension of time, Archanian requests a ruling "[ghat from June 19, 2018 through July 6, 2018, both dates inclusive, Petitioner had a properly filed state post-conviction petition pending in the Nevada Supreme Court." ECF No. 12 at 5. Archanian requests this finding because it affects the application of the statute of limitations with respect to his amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). These dates are significant because, according to Archanian, on the appeal in his first state habeas action, the Supreme Court of Nevada inadvertently issued a remittitur on June 19, 2018 and then recalled that remittitur on July 6, 2018. Id. at 2. Archanian's counsel state that they have been unable to locate any authority regarding the operation of the statute of limitations under such circumstances. Id. at 3. The further state that they conferred with the respondents' counsel and "Respondent agrees that the post-conviction action in [the] Nevada Supreme Court [c]ase remained pending until the Nevada Supreme Court issued its final remittitur on October 18, 2018." Id. The respondents did not respond to Archanian's motion. I will treat this as a stipulation of the parties, which I will approve, and make the factual finding requested by Archanian.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED. The petitioner will have until October 17, 2019 to file an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the April 22, 2019 order (ECF No. 11) remains in effect.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that it will be considered established in this case that from June 19, 2018 through July 6, 2018, both dates inclusive, the petitioner had a properly filed state post-conviction petition pending at the Supreme Court of Nevada.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer