Opinion
2:04-cv-00868-RCJ-EJY
01-25-2022
WILLIAM P. CASTILLO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM GITTERE, et al., Respondents.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 262)
ROBERT C. JONES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
In this capital habeas corpus action, on May 25, 2021, the petitioner, William P. Castillo, represented by appointed counsel, filed his opening brief on remand (ECF No. 255). Then, after a 60-day initial period, a 60-day extension, another 60-day extension, and a 62-day extension, Respondents were due on January 24, 2022, to file their responding brief. See Order entered January 25, 2021 (ECF No. 252) (60 days for responding brief); Order entered September 8, 2021 (ECF No. 257) (60-day extension); Order entered October 21, 2021 (ECF No. 259) (60-day extension); Order entered December 28, 2021 (ECF No. 261) (62-day extension).
On January 24, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 262), requesting a further 60-day extension of time, to March 25, 2022, to file their responding brief on remand. Respondents’ counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases, time away from her office, and personal medical reasons. 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 there is good cause for the extension of time. 1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 262) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including March 25, 2022, to file their responding brief on remand.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings on remand set forth in the order entered January 25, 2021 (ECF No. 252) will remain in effect. 2