ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

In this habeas corpus action, the respondents filed a motion to dismiss on February 2, 2018 (ECF No. 13). The pro se petitioner, Joshua Ryan Grow, filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 2, 2018 (ECF No. 17).

The order entered December 4, 2017 (ECF No. 6), contains scheduling provisions relative to this case. That order states: "If respondents file a motion to dismiss, petitioner will have sixty (60) days to file a response to the motion to dismiss, and then respondents will have thirty (30) days to file a reply to petitioner's response." Order entered December 4, 2017 (ECF No. 6), p. 2. Therefore, respondents' reply to Grow's opposition to the motion to dismiss is due on May 2, 2018.

On April 9, 2018, respondents filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 18), requesting an extension of time to May 9, 2018, for their reply in support of their motion to dismiss. Respondents mistakenly characterize this as a 30-day extension of time; it would be a 7-day extension. This would be the first extension of this deadline. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases. 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 this motion for extension of time. However, 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. 18) is granted. Respondents will have until May 9, 2018, to file a reply to petitioner's opposition to their motion to dismiss. In all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered December 4, 2017 (ECF No. 6) will remain in effect.