Opinion
2:22-cv-00007-GMN-NJK
11-20-2023
CORINTHIAN EDWARDS, Petitioner, v. CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Corinthian Edwards seeks an extension of time to file his opposition to Respondents' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 32. The Court finds the motion is made in good faith and not solely for the purpose of delay. Petitioner has until December 8, 2023, to file an opposition to Respondents' motion to dismiss.
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. ] Given the age of this case and the length of time the motion to dismiss has been pending, Petitioner will have until December 8, 2023, to file his opposition to the motion to dismiss. Given the Court's case management responsibilities under the CJRA, moving forward counsel will be required to prioritize the briefing of the motion to dismiss in this case over later-filed matters.
The CJRA provides that each United States District Court must develop a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan to facilitate the deliberate adjudication of civil cases on the merits, monitor and improve litigation management, and reduce cost and delay. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (noting the rules should be implemented to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of each case). The CJRA mandates the early and on-going judicial management of case progress. 28 U.S.C. § 473(a).
It is therefore ordered that Petitioner Corinthian Edwards's unopposed second Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 32) is granted.
It is further ordered that counsel must prioritize the briefing of the motion to dismiss 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.