UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE A REPLY

(First Request)

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.

COMES NOW, the petitioner, Wilson O. Peters, by and through counsel, Assistant Federal Public Defender Jason F. Carr, hereby moves this Court for an enlargement of time of eighty-two (82) days from July 8, 2016, to and including September 28, 2016, in which to file a reply to Respondent's Answer. This motion is based upon the attached points and authorities and all pleadings and papers on file herein.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. On July 1, 2014, this Court appointed the Law Office of the Federal Public Defender "FPD" was appointed to represent Petitioner in the above-entitled action or to "indicate to the Court its inability to represent petitioner in these proceedings." (ECF No. 4.) Counsel filed his Notice of Appearance on July 31, 2014. (ECF No. 6.) Peters filed his Amended Petition on November 10, 2014 (ECF No. 8). Respondents filed their Motion to Dismiss on August 13, 2015. (ECF No. 22.)

Peters filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on October 29, 2016 (ECF No. 27) followed by Respondent's Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed on November 23, 2015. (ECF No. 33.)

2. On February 29, 2016, this Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. Respondents filed their answer to the remaining claims on June 8, 2016. Petitioner's reply is currently due July 8, 2016. Counsel for Petitioner is requesting a eighty-two (82) day extension of time, to and including, September 28, 2016, for the date of the in which to file a reply. This is the first request for an extension.

3. Counsel's recent and forthcoming schedule interferes with his ability to adequately prepare a reply for Peters. To wit: a previously extended second amended petition filed June 15, 2016, in Hawes v. Palmer, case number 3:10-cv-00655-RCJ-VPC; a previously extended reply filed June 15, 2016, in Abara v. Baker, case number 3:10-cv-0688-HDM-VPC; a response to court order filed June 16, 2016, in Ramirez v. Baker, case number 3:13-cv-00025-MMD-VPC; a previously extended reply brief filed June 17, 2016, in Chen v. Neven, CA number 15-17151; a previously extended reply filed June 17, 2016, in Depenbrock v. Neven, case number 2:12-cv-01327-RFB-CWH; an opposition to motion to dismiss due June 27, 2016; a previously extended reply filed June 30, 2016, in Brown, B. v. State of Nevada, case number 2:02-cv-00770-GMN-PAL; an opposition to motion to dismiss filed July 5, 2016, in Moore v. LeGrand, case number 3:13-cv-00390-LRH-WGC; an amended petition filed July 5, 2016, in Fritsche v. LeGrand, case number 3:15-cv-00425-MMD-WGC; an opposition to motion to dismiss due July 8, 2016, in Smith, Jacob v. Baca, case number 3:14-cv-00512-MMD-VPC; a supplemental brief due July 13, 2016, in USA v. Toliver, CA number 15-15439; a previously extended opening brief due July 22, 2016, in Smith, T. v. Cox, CA number 14-15884; a previously extended opening brief due July 22, 2016, in Davis v. Warden, CA number 15-17083; an opposition to motion to dismiss due July 25, 2016, in Henderson v. Baker, case number 3:14-cv-00639-RCJ-WGC; a previously extended reply brief due August 4, 2016, in USA v. Rocha, CA number 15-10295; second amended petition due August 4, 2016, in Gallegos v. Baca, case number 3:15cv-00254-RCJ-VPC; an opposition to motion to dismiss due August 5, 2016, in Redenius v. Palmer, case number 3:14-cv-0537-RCJ-VPC; a previously extended amended petition and potential stay motion due August 19, 2016, in Barnes v. Nevens, case number 2:14-cv-01946-RFB-PAL; an AEDPA deadline due August 30, 2016, in Irive v. Baker, case number 2:16-cv-00241-MMD-WGC; and a previously extended opposition to motion to dismiss due September 12, 2016, in Morales v. Neven, case number 2;15-cv-00185-GMN-CWH.

4. On July 8, 2015, counsel for Petitioner contacted Deputy Attorney General Amanda C. Kunzi via email concerning this request for an extension of time. Ms. Kunzi had no objection to the request for an extension of time, with the caveat that nothing about the decision not to oppose Petitioner's extension request signifies an implied finding of a basis for tolling any applicable period of limitations or the waiver of any other procedural defense. Petitioner at all times remains responsible for calculating any limitations periods and understands that, in granting an extension request, the Court makes no finding or representation that the petition, any amendments thereto, and/or any claims contained therein are not subject to dismissal as untimely.

5. This motion is not filed for the purpose of delay, but in the interests of justice, as well as in the interest of Mr. Peters. Counsel respectfully requests that this Court grant the request for an extension of time to file the Mr. Peters in his federal habeas action.

6. Counsel for petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion and order Petitioner to file his reply no later than September 28, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.