Filed: Apr. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Petitioner Jerry D. Pough, represented by appointed counsel, filed an amended habeas petition on February 28, 2019 (ECF No. 23). Respondents were to respond to the amended petition by April 29, 2019. ( See Order entered June 11, 2018 (ECF No. 8 (60 days for response).) On April 26, 2019, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 27), requesting an extension of time to June 27, 2019—a 59-day extension—for their response to the amended
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Petitioner Jerry D. Pough, represented by appointed counsel, filed an amended habeas petition on February 28, 2019 (ECF No. 23). Respondents were to respond to the amended petition by April 29, 2019. ( See Order entered June 11, 2018 (ECF No. 8 (60 days for response).) On April 26, 2019, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 27), requesting an extension of time to June 27, 2019—a 59-day extension—for their response to the amended p..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Petitioner Jerry D. Pough, represented by appointed counsel, filed an amended habeas petition on February 28, 2019 (ECF No. 23). Respondents were to respond to the amended petition by April 29, 2019. (See Order entered June 11, 2018 (ECF No. 8 (60 days for response).)
On April 26, 2019, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 27), requesting an extension of time to June 27, 2019—a 59-day extension—for their response to the amended petition. This would be the first extension of this deadline. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of the complexity of the case, because of her obligations in other cases, and because of time away from her work. Petitioner does not oppose the motion for extension of time. The Court finds that the 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 the motion for extension of time.
It is therefore ordered that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 27) is granted. Respondents will have until June 27, 2019, to file a response to the amended habeas petition.
It is further ordered that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered June 11, 2018 (ECF No. 8) will remain in effect.
