Filed: May 03, 2018
Latest Update: May 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 161) on March 5, 2018. The petitioner, Fernando Navarro Hernandez, was due to respond to that motion by May 4, 2018. See Order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94) (60 days for response to motion to dismiss). On May 1, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 165), requesting a 60-day extension of time, to July 3, 2018, for his respon
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 161) on March 5, 2018. The petitioner, Fernando Navarro Hernandez, was due to respond to that motion by May 4, 2018. See Order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94) (60 days for response to motion to dismiss). On May 1, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 165), requesting a 60-day extension of time, to July 3, 2018, for his respons..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 161) on March 5, 2018. The petitioner, Fernando Navarro Hernandez, was due to respond to that motion by May 4, 2018. See Order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94) (60 days for response to motion to dismiss).
On May 1, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 165), requesting a 60-day extension of time, to July 3, 2018, for his response to the motion to dismiss. This would be the first extension of this deadline. Petitioner's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because he is relatively new to this case, and because of his obligations in other cases. Respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time. The Court finds that petitioner'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. 165) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until July 3, 2018, to respond to the motion to dismiss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered February 20, 2015 (ECF No. 94) will remain in effect.
