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 Respondents' third unopposed motion to extend time (ECF No. 54). Respondents seek a 60-day extension of time to file and serve an answer or other responsive pleading to Petitioner Carl Henry Olsen, III's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 45). Habeas actions are civil actions under federal practice and are subject to the reporting requirements of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 19
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , Chief District Judge . This habeas matter is before the Court on Respondents' third unopposed motion to extend time (ECF No. 54). Respondents seek a 60-day extension of time to file and serve an answer or other responsive pleading to Petitioner Carl Henry Olsen, III's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 45). Habeas actions are civil actions under federal practice and are subject to the reporting requirements of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 199..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, Chief District Judge.
This habeas matter is before the Court on Respondents' third unopposed motion to extend time (ECF No. 54). Respondents seek a 60-day extension of time to file and serve an answer or other responsive pleading to Petitioner Carl Henry Olsen, III's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 45).
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 certain habeas actions may impede the three-year objective, the Court attempts to posture each case for a merits decision within three years of filing.
Olsen originally commenced this action in July 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The Court dismissed the action as a successive petition. (ECF No. 5.) However, in July 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the dismissal order and remanded for further proceedings. (ECF No. 18.) Olsen was subsequently appointed counsel. (ECF No. 33.) Since remand, both parties have received numerous extensions of time to amend the pleadings and complete briefing. (ECF Nos. 22, 24, 26, 35, 38, 40, 42, 44, 51, 53.) Respondents now asserts that an additional 60 days is necessary to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended petition because counsel has deadlines in several other cases in the next two months.
To meet the CJRA's three-year objective, this case must be resolved by July 2020. Based on the age of this case and lack of progress to date, this case is unlikely to be fully briefed and ready for merits consideration before July 2020. Given the Court's case management responsibilities under the CJRA, moving forward counsel will be required to prioritize the briefing in this case over later-filed matters.
It is therefore ordered that Respondents' third unopposed motion to extend time (ECF No. 54) is granted in part and denied in part. Respondents have until January 29, 2020, to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended petition. All other instructions stated in the scheduling order (ECF No. 33) remain in effect.
It is further ordered that counsel for both parties must prioritize the briefing in this case over later-filed matters. 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.
