Opinion
2:98-cv-01263-MMD-BNW
01-06-2023
DAVID BOLLINGER, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM REUBART, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this capital habeas corpus action, on July 25, 2022, Respondents filed an amended supplemental answer (ECF No. 323), responding to Petitioner David Bollinger's Claim 7D, as directed in the order of May 24, 2022 (ECF No. 322). Bollinger filed a reply to the amended supplemental answer on October 21, 2022. (ECF No. 327.) Then, after an initial 30-day period and a 45-day extension of time, Respondents were due on January 5, 2023, to file their response to Bollinger's reply. (ECF Nos. 322, 329.)
On January 5, 2023, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 330 (“Motion”)), requesting a seven-day extension of time, to January 12, 2023, to file their response to Bollinger's reply. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary primarily because of his obligations in other cases. Respondents' counsel represents that Bollinger, who is represented by appointed counsel, does not oppose the Motion.
The Court finds that Respondents' Motion 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 Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 330) is granted. Respondents will have until and including January 12, 2023, to file their response to Petitioner's reply to their amended supplemental answer.