Filed: Dec. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 31, 2019
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , Chief District Judge . This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner's unopposed first motion for extension of time (ECF No. 64). Petitioner seeks a 60-day extension of time to file and serve a reply in support of the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 22). Habeas actions are civil actions under federal practice and are subject to the reporting requirements of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 ("CJRA"), 28 U.S.C. 471 et seq. 1 Th
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , Chief District Judge . This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner's unopposed first motion for extension of time (ECF No. 64). Petitioner seeks a 60-day extension of time to file and serve a reply in support of the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 22). Habeas actions are civil actions under federal practice and are subject to the reporting requirements of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 ("CJRA"), 28 U.S.C. 471 et seq. 1 The..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, Chief District Judge.
This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner's unopposed first motion for extension of time (ECF No. 64). Petitioner seeks a 60-day extension of time to file and serve a reply in support of the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 22).
Habeas actions are civil actions under federal practice and are subject to the reporting requirements of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 ("CJRA"), 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq.1 The CJRA sets a three-year goal for resolution of each civil case on the merits, id. § 476(a)(3), and encourages "setting, at the earliest practicable time, deadlines for filing motions and a time framework for their disposition," id. § 473(a). Although the procedural and legal complexity of some habeas actions may impede the three-year objective, the Court attempts to posture each case for a merits decision within three years of filing.
Petitioner commenced this action in July 2017. (ECF No. 1.) To date, both parties have received numerous extensions of time to amend the pleadings and complete briefing. (ECF Nos. 19, 21, 26, 28, 30, 38, 40, 42, 49, 52, 56, 59.) Petitioner's current motion asserts that an additional 60 days is necessary to prepare a reply because this case is relatively complex. Counsel recently joined the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada, and she has deadlines in several other cases in the next two months.
Given the age of this case, the Court previously directed "counsel for both parties to prioritize the briefing in this case over later-filed matters."2 (ECF No. 56 ("Further extensions of time are not likely to be granted absent compelling circumstances and a strong showing of good cause why the briefing could not be completed within the extended time allowed despite the exercise of due diligence.") (emphasis in original).) This instruction and warning remain in effect.
It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's unopposed first motion for extension of time (ECF No. 64) is granted. Petitioner has until February 25, 2020, to reply to Respondents' Answer to the Second Amended Petition.
