Filed: Feb. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, after a 77-day extension of time, the respondents were due to file their answer by February 12, 2018. See Order entered September 28, 2017 (ECF No. 214); Order entered November 28, 2017 (ECF No. 216). On February 12, 2018, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 217), requesting another extension time, of 60 days, to April 13, 2018. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is nec
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, after a 77-day extension of time, the respondents were due to file their answer by February 12, 2018. See Order entered September 28, 2017 (ECF No. 214); Order entered November 28, 2017 (ECF No. 216). On February 12, 2018, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 217), requesting another extension time, of 60 days, to April 13, 2018. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is nece..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
In this capital habeas corpus action, after a 77-day extension of time, the respondents were due to file their answer by February 12, 2018. See Order entered September 28, 2017 (ECF No. 214); Order entered November 28, 2017 (ECF No. 216).
On February 12, 2018, respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 217), requesting another extension time, of 60 days, to April 13, 2018. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases, and because of other duties at the Office of the Attorney General. There is no indication that petitioner opposes the 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 requested extension of time. The Court will grant this second extension of time, as requested.
However, in light of the amount of time that respondents will have had to file their answer — well over six months — the Court will not look favorably upon any motion to further extend this deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 217) is GRANTED. Respondents shall have until and including April 13, 2018, to file their answer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered August 10, 2015 (ECF No. 167) shall remain in effect.