Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. Williams, 2:15-cv-00487-KJD-VCF. (2020)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20200131b84 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 30, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2020
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 79) KENT J. DAWSON , District Judge . In this habeas corpus action, after a 70-day extension of time, the petitioner, Montrail D. Smith, represented by appointed counsel, was due to respond to Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 72, filed September 18, 2019) by January 27, 2020. See Order entered April 24, 2019 (ECF No. 68) (60 days for response); Order entered January 7, 2020 (ECF No. 78) (70-day extension of time). On January 27,
More

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 79)

In this habeas corpus action, after a 70-day extension of time, the petitioner, Montrail D. Smith, represented by appointed counsel, was due to respond to Respondents' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 72, filed September 18, 2019) by January 27, 2020. See Order entered April 24, 2019 (ECF No. 68) (60 days for response); Order entered January 7, 2020 (ECF No. 78) (70-day extension of time).

On January 27, 2020, Smith filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 79), requesting a second extension of time, of 60 days, to March 27, 2020. Smith's counsel states that this extension of time is necessary because she wishes to await the completion of discovery in another case, which discovery may have an impact on her response to the motion to dismiss in this case. Respondents do not oppose the motion for extension of time.

The Court finds that Smith'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 for the extension of time requested.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 79) is GRANTED. Petitioner will have until and including March 27, 2020, to file his response to the motion to dismiss.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered April 24, 2019 (ECF No. 68) will remain in effect.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer