Opinion
3:17-cv-00515-HDM-CLB
10-13-2022
MARCO GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. CALVIN JOHNSON, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN, DISTRICT JUDGE
In this habeas corpus action, after a 120-day period following the resolution of the respondents' motion to dismiss, a 60-day extension of time, and a 45-day extension of time, Respondents were due to file an answer by October 7, 2022. See Order entered February 24, 2022 (ECF No. 74) (resolving motion to dismiss); Order entered June 27, 2022 (ECF No. 76) (60-day extension); Order entered August 24, 2022 (ECF No. 78) (45-day extension).
On October 7, 2022, Respondents filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No. 79), requesting a further 34-day extension of time, to November 10, 2022. Respondents' counsel states that the extension of time is necessary because of her obligations in other cases and because of illness. Respondents' counsel represents that Petitioner Marco Guzman, represented by appointed counsel, does not oppose the motion for extension of time.
The Court finds that Respondents' 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 requested. The Court will grant the extension of time as requested. However, in view of the amount of time that Respondents will have had to file their answer-over eight months-the Court will not be inclined to further extend this deadline absent extraordinary circumstances
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents' Motion for Enlargement of Time (ECF No. 79) is GRANTED. Respondents will have until and including November 10, 2022, to file their answer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, the schedule for further proceedings set forth in the order entered January 19, 2021 (ECF No. 54) will remain in effect.