Filed: Mar. 07, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed their answer on November 15, 2018 (ECF No. 263). After a 61-day extension of time, the petitioner, Kevin James Lisle, was due to file a reply to the answer by March 1, 2019. See Order filed June 22, 2016 (ECF No. 191); Order entered December 21, 2018 (ECF No. 266). On March 1, 2019, Lisle filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 267), requesting a second extension of time for his repl
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed their answer on November 15, 2018 (ECF No. 263). After a 61-day extension of time, the petitioner, Kevin James Lisle, was due to file a reply to the answer by March 1, 2019. See Order filed June 22, 2016 (ECF No. 191); Order entered December 21, 2018 (ECF No. 266). On March 1, 2019, Lisle filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 267), requesting a second extension of time for his reply..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed their answer on November 15, 2018 (ECF No. 263). After a 61-day extension of time, the petitioner, Kevin James Lisle, was due to file a reply to the answer by March 1, 2019. See Order filed June 22, 2016 (ECF No. 191); Order entered December 21, 2018 (ECF No. 266).
On March 1, 2019, Lisle filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 267), requesting a second extension of time for his reply, this one 49 days, to April 19, 2019. Lisle's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of his obligations in other cases. The respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time.
The Court finds that Lisle's 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 Petitioner's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 267) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including April 19, 2019, to file his reply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order filed June 22, 2016 (ECF No. 191) will remain in effect.
