Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dewey v. Neven, 3:13-cv-00317-LRH-WGC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180130g03 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jan. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS , District Judge . In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Nevada prisoner Shelli Rose Dewey, filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 18, 2017 (ECF No. 59). The respondents were due to respond to the second amended petition by January 16, 2018. See Order entered July 20, 2017 (ECF No. 58); Order entered November 21, 2017 (ECF No. 61). On January 17, 2018, respondents filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 62), requesting
More

ORDER

In this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Nevada prisoner Shelli Rose Dewey, filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 18, 2017 (ECF No. 59). The respondents were due to respond to the second amended petition by January 16, 2018. See Order entered July 20, 2017 (ECF No. 58); Order entered November 21, 2017 (ECF No. 61).

On January 17, 2018, respondents filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 62), requesting an extension of time to February 16, 2018. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of his obligations in other cases. Counsel also states that the motion was filed a day late because of a calendaring error. Dewey does not oppose the motion for extension of time.

The Court finds that respondents have shown excusable neglect for the one-day-late filing of the motion for extension of time (see LR 26-4). The Court finds, further, 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 to extend this deadline. Under the circumstances in this case, the Court will extend the deadline for respondents' response to the second amended petition to March 9, 2018. However, the Court will not be inclined to further extend this deadline.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until March 9, 2018, to answer or otherwise respond to the petitioner's second amended habeas petition. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered July 20, 2017 (ECF No. 58) shall remain in effect.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer