Filed: Mar. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON , District Judge . In this habeas corpus action, brought by Nevada prisoner Beau Brown, the respondents are due to file an answer, responding to the claims remaining in Brown's first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, by March 14, 2016. See Order entered November 9, 2015 (ECF No. 47); Notice of Abandonment of Claims, filed December 10, 2015 (ECF No. 48); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days when service is by electronic means); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6
Summary: ORDER KENT J. DAWSON , District Judge . In this habeas corpus action, brought by Nevada prisoner Beau Brown, the respondents are due to file an answer, responding to the claims remaining in Brown's first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, by March 14, 2016. See Order entered November 9, 2015 (ECF No. 47); Notice of Abandonment of Claims, filed December 10, 2015 (ECF No. 48); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days when service is by electronic means); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(..
More
ORDER
KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.
In this habeas corpus action, brought by Nevada prisoner Beau Brown, the respondents are due to file an answer, responding to the claims remaining in Brown's first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, by March 14, 2016. See Order entered November 9, 2015 (ECF No. 47); Notice of Abandonment of Claims, filed December 10, 2015 (ECF No. 48); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days when service is by electronic means); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (deadline falling on weekend).
On March 7, 2016, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 49), requesting an extension of time to April 8, 2016 — a 25-day extension of time — to file their answer. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary primarily because of the number of claims remaining in Brown's amended petition. Respondents' counsel states that Brown's counsel does not oppose the motion for extension of time. The Court finds that respondents' 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. The Court will grant the motion for extension of time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED. Respondents shall have until and including April 8, 2016, to file an answer, responding to the claims remaining in Brown's first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered November 9, 2015 (ECF No. 47) shall remain in effect.