Filed: Dec. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2018
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). The petitioner, Kevin James Lisle, is now due to file a reply to the answer by December 31, 2019. See Order filed June 22, 2016 (ECF No. 191) (45 days for reply; December 30 is a Sunday). On December 17, 2018, Lisle filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 265), requesting an extension of time, to March 1, 2019, to file his reply — a 61
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). The petitioner, Kevin James Lisle, is now due to file a reply to the answer by December 31, 2019. See Order filed June 22, 2016 (ECF No. 191) (45 days for reply; December 30 is a Sunday). On December 17, 2018, Lisle filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 265), requesting an extension of time, to March 1, 2019, to file his reply — a 61-..
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). The petitioner, Kevin James Lisle, is now due to file a reply to the answer by December 31, 2019. See Order filed June 22, 2016 (ECF No. 191) (45 days for reply; December 30 is a Sunday).
On December 17, 2018, Lisle filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 265), requesting an extension of time, to March 1, 2019, to file his reply — a 61-day extension of time. Lisle's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of his obligations in other cases. This would be the first extension of this deadline. 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. 265) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including March 1, 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.
