Filed: Oct. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , Chief District Judge . Petitioner in this habeas corpus action, Jerry D. Pough, represented by appointed counsel, filed an amended habeas petition on February 28, 2019. (ECF No. 23.) Respondents filed an answer on September 10, 2019. (ECF No. 32) Under the scheduling order in the case (ECF No. 8), Pough then had 45 days—until October 25, 2019—to file a reply. On October 24, 2019, Pough filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 38), requesting a 75-day extension of
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , Chief District Judge . Petitioner in this habeas corpus action, Jerry D. Pough, represented by appointed counsel, filed an amended habeas petition on February 28, 2019. (ECF No. 23.) Respondents filed an answer on September 10, 2019. (ECF No. 32) Under the scheduling order in the case (ECF No. 8), Pough then had 45 days—until October 25, 2019—to file a reply. On October 24, 2019, Pough filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 38), requesting a 75-day extension of ..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, Chief District Judge.
Petitioner in this habeas corpus action, Jerry D. Pough, represented by appointed counsel, filed an amended habeas petition on February 28, 2019. (ECF No. 23.) Respondents filed an answer on September 10, 2019. (ECF No. 32) Under the scheduling order in the case (ECF No. 8), Pough then had 45 days—until October 25, 2019—to file a reply.
On October 24, 2019, Pough filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 38), requesting a 75-day extension of time, to January 8, 2020, to file his reply. Pough's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of his obligations in other cases and because of staffing issues at the office of the Federal Public Defender. This would be the first extension of this deadline. Respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time.
The Court finds that Pough'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. 38) is granted. Petitioner will have until and including January 8, 2020, to file his reply to Respondents' answer.
It is further ordered that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered June 11, 2018 (ECF No. 8) will remain in effect.
