Filed: Oct. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents are due to file an answer by October 1, 2018. See Order entered July 2, 2018 (ECF No. 260) (90 days from July 2 for answer). On September 26, 2018, Respondents filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 261), requesting a 45-day extension of time, to November 15, 2018, for the answer. This would be the first extension of this deadline. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents are due to file an answer by October 1, 2018. See Order entered July 2, 2018 (ECF No. 260) (90 days from July 2 for answer). On September 26, 2018, Respondents filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 261), requesting a 45-day extension of time, to November 15, 2018, for the answer. This would be the first extension of this deadline. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time ..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents are due to file an answer by October 1, 2018. See Order entered July 2, 2018 (ECF No. 260) (90 days from July 2 for answer).
On September 26, 2018, Respondents filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 261), requesting a 45-day extension of time, to November 15, 2018, for the answer. This would be the first extension of this deadline. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases and time away from her office. The petitioner does not oppose the motion for extension of time. The Court finds that Respondents' motion for extension of time is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay, and that there is good cause for the extension of time requested.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 261) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until November 15, 2018, to file their answer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered June 22, 2016 (ECF No. 191) will remain in effect.
