Reberger v. Nevada, 3:13-cv-00071-MMD-VPC. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180307e65
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 is before the Court on respondents' second motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 85). The Court previously granted respondents' request for a three-week extension of time based on counsel's demanding schedule. (ECF No. 84; ECF No. 83.) Respondents' current motion seeks another threeweek extension for a similar reason—d
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . This counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 is before the Court on respondents' second motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 85). The Court previously granted respondents' request for a three-week extension of time based on counsel's demanding schedule. (ECF No. 84; ECF No. 83.) Respondents' current motion seeks another threeweek extension for a similar reason—de..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
This counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is before the Court on respondents' second motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 85). The Court previously granted respondents' request for a three-week extension of time based on counsel's demanding schedule. (ECF No. 84; ECF No. 83.) Respondents' current motion seeks another threeweek extension for a similar reason—demands on counsel's schedule.1 (ECF 85.) Because the Court already granted an extension for a similar reason and because the Court endeavors to resolve the pending motion to dismiss by the end of March, the Court denies the requested three-week extension. However, the Court will give respondents until March 14, 2018, to file a reply in support of the motion to dismiss.
It is therefore ordered that respondents' second motion for extension of time (ECF No. 85) is granted in part.
FootNotes
1. In fact, the only difference between the two declarations supporting the extension motions appears to be counsel's progress in responding to a 250-page Fourth Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus due in another case on March 26, 2018. (Compare ECF No. 83, ¶ 2 with ECF No. 85, ¶ 2.)
Source: Leagle
