Filed: May 25, 2018
Latest Update: May 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed an answer on April 13, 2018 (ECF No. 219). The petitioner, Sterling Atkins, was then due to file a reply by May 28, 2018. See Order entered August 10, 2015 (ECF No. 167) (45 days for reply). On May 21, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 220), requesting a 60-day extension of time, to July 27, 2018, for his reply. This would be the first extension of this dead
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed an answer on April 13, 2018 (ECF No. 219). The petitioner, Sterling Atkins, was then due to file a reply by May 28, 2018. See Order entered August 10, 2015 (ECF No. 167) (45 days for reply). On May 21, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 220), requesting a 60-day extension of time, to July 27, 2018, for his reply. This would be the first extension of this deadl..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
In this capital habeas corpus action, the respondents filed an answer on April 13, 2018 (ECF No. 219). The petitioner, Sterling Atkins, was then due to file a reply by May 28, 2018. See Order entered August 10, 2015 (ECF No. 167) (45 days for reply).
On May 21, 2018, petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 220), requesting a 60-day extension of time, to July 27, 2018, for his reply. This would be the first extension of this deadline. Petitioner's counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of the complexity of this case and because of his obligations in other cases. Respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time. The Court finds that petitioner's 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.
Recognizing the complexity of this case, and in the interest of avoiding the need for any further extension of time, the Court will extend the deadline for the reply to September 7, 2018. The Court will not look favorably upon any motion to further extend this deadline.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 220) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until September 7, 2018, to file his reply.
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) will remain in effect.