Filed: Oct. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . In this habeas corpus action, after one 45-day extension of time, the respondents were due to file an answer, responding to the remaining claims in Darryl L. Jones' petition for writ of habeas corpus, by October 2, 2015. See Order entered June 19, 2015 (Doc. 34); Order entered August 18, 2015 (Doc. 36). On October 2, 2015, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (Doc. 37), requesting a second extension of time, this one 31 days, which
Summary: ORDER JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . In this habeas corpus action, after one 45-day extension of time, the respondents were due to file an answer, responding to the remaining claims in Darryl L. Jones' petition for writ of habeas corpus, by October 2, 2015. See Order entered June 19, 2015 (Doc. 34); Order entered August 18, 2015 (Doc. 36). On October 2, 2015, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (Doc. 37), requesting a second extension of time, this one 31 days, which w..
More
ORDER
JENNIFER A. DORSEY, District Judge.
In this habeas corpus action, after one 45-day extension of time, the respondents were due to file an answer, responding to the remaining claims in Darryl L. Jones' petition for writ of habeas corpus, by October 2, 2015. See Order entered June 19, 2015 (Doc. 34); Order entered August 18, 2015 (Doc. 36).
On October 2, 2015, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (Doc. 37), requesting a second extension of time, this one 31 days, which would extend the due date for the answer to November 2, 2015. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary primarily because of her responsibilities in other cases. The court finds that the 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 requested extension of time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (Doc. 37) is GRANTED. Respondents shall have until and including November 2, 2015, to file and serve an answer, as described in the Order entered June 19, 2015 (Doc. 34).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, after respondents file their answer, petitioner will then have 60 days to file a reply.
